arXiv subjects

Bing Zhao

Publications and source records attributed to Bing Zhao.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

ClinConsensus: A Physician-Calibrated Benchmark for Evaluating Clinical Rubric Coverage in Chinese Medical LLMs

Open-ended medical LLM evaluation remains weakly grounded in physician-calibrated coverage of clinically relevant response criteria, especially in localized clinical settings. We introduce \textsc{ClinConsensus}, a Chinese medical benchmark of 2{,}500 expert-curated cases spanning 36 specialties, 12 task themes, multiple difficulty levels, and lay-facing versus professional-facing settings. Each case is paired with 30 case-specific binary rubric criteria. To evaluate whether responses satisfy enough physician-authored criteria, we propose \emph{Clinician-Anchored Coverage Score} (CACS), a physician-calibrated threshold metric instantiated at $k=10$, and develop a dual-judge framework combining a GPT-5.1 grader with a physician-supervised Qwen3-8B judge. Evaluating 11 frontier LLMs, we find a persistent coverage gap: Rubric Accuracy ranges from 39.6\% to 52.1\%, whereas CACS@10 ranges from 17.8\% to 32.9\%, leaving a 19.2--21.9 point gap across models. Stratified analyses further reveal substantial variation across reasoning, evidence use, structured extraction, medication instructions, follow-up, and dialogue register. These results suggest that medical LLM evaluation should measure thresholded, rubric-grounded clinical coverage rather than average partial correctness.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

SWE-Test: Benchmarking LLM Vulnerability Discovery via Input Prediction

Vulnerability discovery is becoming an important ability of large language model (LLM) agents: agents that silently miss real defects leave critical software exposed. Rigorously measuring this ability is therefore urgent, but existing benchmarks are gameable through data contamination, score recall against an unknowable vulnerability set, often rely on synthetic bugs, and report a single end-to-end verdict that cannot localize where an agent fails. Vulnerability discovery is a composite ability: an agent must comprehend source code, infer input constraints, construct inputs, execute them, and iteratively correct from feedback. We recast its measurement as an input-prediction task with a closed, deterministic ground truth: using coverage-guided fuzzing, we mine deep target branches in real-world C/C++ programs and ask an agent to predict an input that drives execution to a given branch. This decomposes discovery into three task modes over 22 real-world C/C++ programs spanning 15 domains. Open-loop and Feedback-enabled share 60 fixed-target task instances across 16 of these codebases (13 domains), testing input construction without and with a distance oracle to isolate code comprehension from feedback-driven correction. Online Arena instead removes the predefined target and scores path exploration by coverage gain on a separate, partially overlapping pool of 11 programs; agents collectively confirmed 13 distinct bugs across six programs. Evaluating 15 default-effort model-scaffold configurations, the best reaches only 55.0% pass rate in the Feedback-enabled mode, and the mean across seven paired Claude Code configurations is 36.4% with feedback versus 19.3% without. Decomposing failures, we find constraint inference, not navigation, is the dominant bottleneck. We release SWE-Test with a turnkey evaluation environment.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

RubricRM: Generative Reward Modeling via Dynamic Rubrics for Image Generation and Editing

Reward models play an essential role in aligning visual generative models, yet most existing visual reward models use a single scalar score or rely on fixed criteria that cannot adapt to different instructions. This limits both interpretability and task sensitivity, especially for text-to-image generation and instruction-based image editing, where different inputs require different evaluation dimensions. We propose RubricRM, a pairwise generative reward modeling framework that first produces an input-specific rubric with evaluation dimensions, weights, and scoring criteria, and then applies the rubric to score candidate images. We train dedicated RubricRM models for text-to-image generation and image editing using a two-stage training pipeline: supervised fine-tuning teaches the model the rubric-based scoring paradigm, while GRPO further improves scoring through fine-grained dimension-level rewards. Experiments on multiple generation and editing benchmarks show that RubricRM outperforms existing specialized reward models and remains competitive with strong proprietary MLLM judges despite using smaller backbones. Our models, data, and code are available at https://github.com/zijiankan/RubricRM.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

The Illusion of $\textit{What If}$: Evaluating the Breakdown of Counterfactual Reasoning in LLMs

Counterfactual reasoning requires models to reason beyond the observed world and explain how altered conditions propagate through downstream consequences. Existing benchmarks largely target bounded settings with fixed variables or single gold outcomes, overlooking open-domain scenarios requiring causal-process evaluation. To this end, we present $\textbf{WhatIfBench}$, a diagnostic benchmark for open-domain, open-form, long-horizon counterfactual causal reasoning, containing 220 what-if questions across STEM, HSS, and Hybrid scenarios. To evaluate free-form responses, we further propose $\textbf{PRISM}$, which first converts each natural-language explanation into a Response-Derived Semantic Causal Graph of events, states, and mechanisms. On top of this graph, PRISM then jointly applies a Process Metric assessing graph-level causal validity and a Rubric Metric assessing answer-level explanatory adequacy. Evaluating six frontier LLMs with this framework, we find that WhatIfBench remains far from saturated: even the strongest model reaches only a 64.62% final score. Further analysis reveals persistent causal gaps, premise drift, and topology fragmentation, suggesting that fluent counterfactual narratives often mask fragile causal processes. The benchmark, code, and evaluation scripts are available at $\href{https://github.com/zju-gt/WhatIfBench}{WhatIfBench}$.

cs.AI↗