Yifan Wu
Publications
Scoring Rules! Statistical and Strategic Alignment for Text Evaluation Metrics
Reference-based text evaluation metrics, which are widely used to assess natural language generation systems, score a candidate response by comparing it with a reference response. The reliability of an evaluation metric is usually judged by its statistical correlation with human ratings. However, as these metrics are increasingly used as optimization objectives, correlation alone is no longer sufficient: agents may strategically game the evaluation metric. We study this issue through two complementary notions of alignment. A metric is statistically aligned if it correlates with human ratings and strategically aligned if it resists perturbations that do not add task-relevant information. We make two contributions. First, we propose test principles for reference-based metrics consisting of human-rating correlation, degradation sensitivity, and manipulation robustness. These principles evaluate whether a metric agrees with human judgments, penalizes low-effort information loss, and resists strategic score inflation. Second, we develop a unified design framework for mutual-information-based metrics that decomposes existing and new metrics into four choices: information measure, estimation method, text representation, and prediction mechanism. Across peer review, summarization, and question answering, we find that strong human-rating correlation does not imply strategic alignment: LLM-as-a-Judge achieves high correlation but is susceptible to manipulation. In contrast, mutual-information-based metrics substantially improve manipulation robustness. Our framework also uncovers a new metric that achieves the strongest overall robustness in our experiments while remaining competitive on human-rating correlation.
To Reason or Not to: Selective Chain-of-Thought in Medical Question Answering
Objective: To improve the efficiency of medical question answering (MedQA) with large language models (LLMs) by avoiding unnecessary reasoning while maintaining accuracy. Methods: We propose Selective Chain-of-Thought (Selective CoT), an inference-time strategy that first predicts whether a question requires reasoning and generates a rationale only when needed. Two open-source LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen-2.5-7B) were evaluated on four biomedical QA benchmarks-HeadQA, MedQA-USMLE, MedMCQA, and PubMedQA. Metrics included accuracy, total generated tokens, and inference time. Results: Selective CoT reduced inference time by 13-45% and token usage by 8-47% with minimal accuracy loss ($\leq$4\%). In some model-task pairs, it achieved both higher accuracy and greater efficiency than standard CoT. Compared with fixed-length CoT, Selective CoT reached similar or superior accuracy at substantially lower computational cost. Discussion: Selective CoT dynamically balances reasoning depth and efficiency by invoking explicit reasoning only when beneficial, reducing redundancy on recall-type questions while preserving interpretability. Conclusion: Selective CoT provides a simple, model-agnostic, and cost-effective approach for medical QA, aligning reasoning effort with question complexity to enhance real-world deployability of LLM-based clinical systems.
ComplLLM: Fine-tuning LLMs to Discover Complementary Signals for Decision-making
Multi-agent decision pipelines can outperform single agent workflows when complementarity holds, i.e., different agents bring unique information to the table to inform a final decision. We propose ComplLLM, a post-training framework based on decision theory that fine-tunes a decision-assistant LLM using complementary information as reward to output signals that complement existing agent decisions. We validate ComplLLM on synthetic and real-world tasks involving domain experts, demonstrating how the approach recovers known complementary information and produces plausible explanations of complementary signals to support downstream decision-makers.