Delvin Ce Zhang
Publications
HyperClaim: Fine-Grained Cross-Modal Hypergraph Reasoning for Video Misinformation Detection
Video misinformation detection is often approached through global multimodal fusion or free-form multimodal reasoning. Both paradigms can under-represent localized authenticity cues that arise from coupled interactions among query phrases, contextual text, and short temporal spans of frames. Because such interactions are inherently higher-order, pairwise graph formulations are insufficient to capture multi-way cross-modal dependencies, whereas hypergraphs offer a suitable representation for these relations. We propose HyperClaim, a discriminative temporal hypergraph framework for sample-level authenticity classification. Using the title or benchmark-provided paired text as a claim-like query, HyperClaim constructs a sparse heterogeneous hypergraph over query tokens, evidence tokens, and sampled frames; applies confidence-aware filtering and source budgeting to form compact text-frame and short-range temporal evidence units; performs adaptive soft-incidence reasoning with residual text-video calibration; and aggregates textual, visual, and hyperedge states through a discrepancy-aware readout. Without relying on generated rationales or external tool calls, HyperClaim preserves fine-grained cross-modal and temporal structure that global fusion tends to flatten. Under the FactGuard temporal protocol, it achieves 83.7%, 82.0%, and 87.3% accuracy on FakeSV, FakeTT, and FakeVV, respectively, outperforming strong discriminative and reasoning-centric baselines. Learned incidence and attention weights further reveal token- and frame-level structure.
DIAGPaper: Diagnosing Valid and Specific Weaknesses in Scientific Papers via Multi-Agent Reasoning
Paper weakness identification using single-agent or multi-agent LLMs has attracted increasing attention, yet existing approaches exhibit key limitations. Many multi-agent systems simulate human roles at a surface level, missing the underlying criteria that lead experts to assess complementary intellectual aspects of a paper. Moreover, prior methods implicitly assume identified weaknesses are valid, ignoring reviewer bias, misunderstanding, and the critical role of author rebuttals in validating review quality. Finally, most systems output unranked weakness lists, rather than prioritizing the most consequential issues for users. In this work, we propose DIAGPaper, a novel multi-agent framework that addresses these challenges through three tightly integrated modules. The customizer module simulates human-defined review criteria and instantiates multiple reviewer agents with criterion-specific expertise. The rebuttal module introduces author agents that engage in structured debate with reviewer agents to validate and refine proposed weaknesses. The prioritizer module learns from large-scale human review practices to assess the severity of validated weaknesses and surfaces the top-K severest ones to users. Experiments on two benchmarks, AAAR and ReviewCritique, demonstrate that DIAGPaper substantially outperforms existing methods by producing more valid and more paper-specific weaknesses, while presenting them in a user-oriented, prioritized manner.