Libin Zheng
Publications
UrbanAgent: A Tool-Augmented Agent for Cross-System Urban Tasks
Modern cities rely on an increasing number of digital services to operate, but residents' daily needs are still difficult to meet. Services are fragmented and have little interoperability, placing a heavy operational burden on users. Existing digital platforms, urban foundation models, and intelligent assistants each address only isolated aspects of an urban task. But they struggle to reliably convert complex natural-language requests into executable cross-system workflows. We propose Urban-Agent, a tool-augmented agent framework for cross-system urban tasks. It couples the cognitive and reasoning capabilities of a large language model with a tool-set supporting code execution, API calls, and Model Context Protocol. Through one adaptive closed loop, it clarifies missing information before acting, grounds tool use in live observations, and aligns the final response with observed evidence and task constraints. To address the evaluation gap, we introduce Urban-Eval, a benchmark specifically designed for cross-system urban request. Unlike prior benchmarks that assess either general tool use or urban knowledge and reasoning, Urban-Eval evaluates both task results and execution quality, including required tool coverage, dependency validity, and evidence traceability. Experimental results indicate that Urban-Agent reaches a 71% task success rate, 10 points above the strongest baseline. This lead holds across GPT-5-mini, Gemini-2.5-flash, DeepSeek-V4-flash, and Qwen3-235B-A22B.
FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Reviews with Literature Positioning and Execution-Based Claim Verification
Peer review in machine learning is under growing pressure from rising submission volume and limited reviewer time. Most LLM-based reviewing systems read only the manuscript and generate comments from the paper's own narrative. This makes their outputs sensitive to presentation quality and leaves them weak when the evidence needed for review lies in related work or released code. We present FactReview, an evidence-grounded reviewing system that combines claim extraction, literature positioning, and execution-based claim verification. Given a submission, FactReview identifies major claims and reported results, retrieves nearby work to clarify the paper's technical position, and, when code is available, executes the released repository under bounded budgets to test central empirical claims. It then produces a concise review and an evidence report that assigns each major claim one of five labels: Supported, Supported by the paper, Partially supported, In conflict, or Inconclusive. In a case study on CompGCN, FactReview reproduces results that closely match those reported for link prediction and node classification, yet also shows that the paper's broader performance claim across tasks is not fully sustained: on MUTAG graph classification, the reproduced result is 88.4%, whereas the strongest baseline reported in the paper remains 92.6%. The claim is therefore only partially supported. More broadly, this case suggests that AI is most useful in peer review not as a final decision-maker, but as a tool for gathering evidence and helping reviewers produce more evidence-grounded assessments. The code is public at https://github.com/DEFENSE-SEU/Review-Assistant.