Jingwen Zhang
Publications
TCP-MCP: Landscape-Guided Co-Evolution of Prompts and Communication Topologies for Multi-Agent Systems
Effective multi-agent systems cannot be designed by selecting prompts or communication graphs in isolation. Agent behavior depends on the information an agent receives, while the usefulness of a communication edge depends on how the receiving agent interprets and uses that information. We propose \textbf{TCP-MCP} (Topology-Coupled Prompting for Multi-Agent Collaborative Problem-Solving), a co-evolution framework that searches agent prompts and communication topologies as a unified genome. TCP-MCP uses an initialization-time landscape probe to calibrate early search behavior, and then relies on Pareto-front diagnostics to adapt exploration under three objectives: task performance, token cost, and structural complexity. Using the same DeepSeek-V3.2 backbone across all methods, TCP-MCP achieves 82.66\%, 89.96\%, and 96.61\% accuracy on MMLU-Pro, MMLU, and GSM8K, respectively. Across the three benchmarks, it consistently outperforms automated graph-generation baselines and achieves competitive accuracy relative to debate-style systems, while using up to 5.69$\times$ fewer tokens than those systems at the reported operating points. These results show that jointly evolving prompts and communication structure provides a practical route to cost-aware and task-adaptive multi-agent system design in controlled evaluations.
The Labyrinth and the Thread: Rethinking Regularizations in Sequential Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models
Sequential editing of structured knowledge in large language models allows targeted factual updates without retraining, yet existing methods often rely on complex regularization or constraint mechanisms whose necessity remains unclear. In this work, we systematically investigate the mechanisms underlying effective and stable sequential editing. Specifically, we first analyze the empirical success of AlphaEdit and establish, via a rigorous optimization analysis, the formal equivalence between one-time and sequential editing. Building on this insight, we generalize the equivalence to a broader class of editing objectives, demonstrating that stability emerges naturally from properly accounting for accumulated editing constraints, rather than from specialized regularization or null-space operations. We empirically confirm that many commonly used regularization strategies are unnecessary for reliable sequential updates. Furthermore, we extend our framework to handle conflicting edits, ensuring robust and consistent behavior under contradictory updates. Ultimately, our work provides Ariadne's thread through the labyrinth of sequential editing, charting a path toward simpler, more interpretable, and dependable knowledge updates. Our code is available at https://github.com/Wangzzzzzzzz/OTE-SE-Alignment.
PLawBench: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal Practice
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to legal domain-specific tasks, evaluating their ability to perform legal work in real-world settings has become essential. However, existing legal benchmarks rely on simplified and highly standardized tasks, failing to capture the ambiguity, complexity, and reasoning demands of real legal practice. Moreover, prior evaluations often adopt coarse, single-dimensional metrics and do not explicitly assess fine-grained legal reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce PLawBench, a Practical Law Benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in realistic legal practice scenarios. Grounded in real-world legal workflows, PLawBench models the core processes of legal practitioners through three task categories: public legal consultation, practical case analysis, and legal document generation. These tasks assess a model's ability to identify legal issues and key facts, perform structured legal reasoning, and generate legally coherent documents. PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics, resulting in approximately 12,500 rubric items for fine-grained assessment. Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs. Experimental results show that none achieves strong performance on PLawBench, revealing substantial limitations in the fine-grained legal reasoning capabilities of current LLMs and highlighting important directions for future evaluation and development of legal LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/skylenage/PLawbench.