Yifan Zhou
Publications
General365: Benchmarking General Reasoning in Large Language Models Across Diverse and Challenging Tasks
Contemporary large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, particularly in specialized domains like mathematics and physics. However, their ability to generalize these reasoning skills to more general and broader contexts--often termed general reasoning--remains under-explored. Unlike domain-specific reasoning, general reasoning relies less on expert knowledge but still presents formidable reasoning challenges, such as complex constraints, nested logical branches, and semantic interference. To address this gap, we introduce General365, a benchmark specifically designed to assess general reasoning in LLMs. By restricting background knowledge to a K-12 level, General365 explicitly decouples reasoning from specialized expertise. The benchmark comprises 365 seed problems and 1,095 variant problems across eight categories, ensuring both high difficulty and diversity. Evaluations across 26 leading LLMs reveal that even the top-performing model achieves only 62.8% accuracy, in stark contrast to the near-perfect performances of LLMs in math and physics benchmarks. These results suggest that the reasoning abilities of current LLMs are heavily domain-dependent, leaving significant room for improvement in broader applications. We envision General365 as a catalyst for advancing LLM reasoning beyond domain-specific tasks toward robust, general-purpose real-world scenarios. Code, Dataset, and Leaderboard: https://general365.github.io
Developing a Multi-Agent System to Generate Next Generation Science Assessments with Evidence-Centered Design
Contemporary science education reforms such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) demand assessments to understand students' ability to use science knowledge to solve problems and design solutions. To elicit such higher-order ability, educators need performance-based assessments, which are challenging to develop. One solution that has been broadly adopted is Evidence-Centered Design (ECD), which emphasizes interconnected models of the learner, evidence, and tasks. Although ECD provides a framework to safeguard assessment validity, its implementation requires diverse expertise (e.g., content and assessment), which is both costly and labor-intensive. To address this challenge, this study proposed integrating the ECD framework into Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) to generate NGSS-aligned assessment items automatically. This integrated MAS system ensembles multiple large language models with varying expertise, enabling the automation of complex, multi-stage item generation workflows traditionally performed by human experts. We examined the quality of AI-generated NGSS-aligned items and compared them with human-developed items across multiple dimensions of assessment design. Results showed that AI-generated items have overall comparable quality to human-developed items in terms of alignment with NGSS three-dimensional standards and cognitive demands. Divergent patterns also emerged: AI-generated items demonstrated a distinct strength in inclusivity, while also exhibiting limitations in clarity, conciseness, and multimodal design. AI- and human-developed items both showed weaknesses in evidence collectability and student interest alignment. These findings suggest that integrating ECD into MAS can support scalable and standards-aligned assessment design, while human expertise remains essential.