Qingyao Ai
Publications
Analytical Search
Analytical information needs, such as trend analysis and causal impact assessment, are prevalent across various domains including law, finance, science, and much more. However, existing information retrieval paradigms, whether based on relevance-oriented document ranking or retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with large language models (LLMs), often struggle to meet the end-to-end requirements of such tasks at the corpus scale. They either emphasize information finding rather than end-to-end problem solving, or simply treat everything as naive question answering, offering limited control over reasoning, evidence usage, and verifiability. As a result, they struggle to support analytical queries that have diverse utility concepts and high accountability requirements. In this paper, we propose analytical search as a distinct and emerging search paradigm designed to fulfill these analytical information needs. Analytical search reframes search as an evidence-governed, process-oriented analytical workflow that explicitly models analytical intent, retrieves evidence for fusion, and produces verifiable conclusions through structured, multi-step inference. We position analytical search in contrast to existing paradigms, and present a unified system framework that integrates query understanding, recall-oriented retrieval, reasoning-aware fusion, and adaptive verification. We also discuss potential research directions for the construction of analytical search engines. In this way, we highlight the conceptual significance and practical importance of analytical search and call on efforts toward the next generation of search engines that support analytical information needs.
Improve Large Language Model Systems with User Logs
Scaling training data and model parameters has long driven progress in large language models (LLMs), but this paradigm is increasingly constrained by the scarcity of high-quality data and diminishing returns from rising computational costs. As a result, recent work is increasing the focus on continual learning from real-world deployment, where user interaction logs provide a rich source of authentic human feedback and procedural knowledge. However, learning from user logs is challenging due to their unstructured and noisy nature. Vanilla LLM systems often struggle to distinguish useful feedback signals from noisy user behavior, and the disparity between user log collection and model optimization (e.g., the off-policy optimization problem) further strengthens the problem. To this end, we propose UNO (User log-driveN Optimization), a unified framework for improving LLM systems (LLMsys) with user logs. UNO first distills logs into semi-structured rules and preference pairs, then employs query-and-feedback-driven clustering to manage data heterogeneity, and finally quantifies the cognitive gap between the model's prior knowledge and the log data. This assessment guides the LLMsys to adaptively filter out noisy feedback and construct different modules for primary and reflective experiences extracted from user logs, thereby improving future responses. Extensive experiments show that UNO achieves state-of-the-art effectiveness and efficiency, significantly outperforming Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) and memory-based baselines. We have open-sourced our code at https://github.com/bebr2/UNO .
Beyond Experience Retrieval: Learning to Generate Utility-Optimized Structured Experience for Frozen LLMs
Large language models (LLMs) are largely static and often redo reasoning or repeat mistakes. Prior experience reuse typically relies on external retrieval, which is similarity-based, can introduce noise, and adds latency. We introduce SEAM (Structured Experience Adapter Module), a lightweight, executor-specific plug-in that stores experience in its parameters and generates a structured, instance-tailored experience entry in a single forward pass to guide a frozen LLM executor. SEAM is trained for utility via executor rollouts and GRPO while keeping the executor frozen, and it can be further improved after deployment with supervised fine-tuning on logged successful trajectories. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks show consistent accuracy gains across executors with low overhead. Extensive ablations and analyses further elucidate the mechanisms underlying SEAM's effectiveness and robustness.
MulFeRL: Enhancing Reinforcement Learning with Verbal Feedback in a Multi-turn Loop
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is widely used to improve reasoning in multiple domains, yet outcome-only scalar rewards are often sparse and uninformative, especially on failed samples, where they merely indicate failure and provide no insight into why the reasoning fails. In this paper, we investigate how to leverage richer verbal feedback to guide RLVR training on failed samples, and how to convert such feedback into a trainable learning signal. Specifically, we propose a multi-turn feedback-guided reinforcement learning framework. It builds on three mechanisms: (1) dynamic multi-turn regeneration guided by feedback, triggered only on failed samples, (2) two complementary learning signals for within-turn and cross-turn optimization, and (3) structured feedback injection into the model's reasoning process. Trained on sampled OpenR1-Math, the approach outperforms supervised fine-tuning and RLVR baselines in-domain and generalizes well out-of-domain.
Evaluation of Large Language Models in Legal Applications: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directions
Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly integrated into legal applications, including judicial decision support, legal practice assistance, and public-facing legal services. While LLMs show strong potential in handling legal knowledge and tasks, their deployment in real-world legal settings raises critical concerns beyond surface-level accuracy, involving the soundness of legal reasoning processes and trustworthy issues such as fairness and reliability. Systematic evaluation of LLM performance in legal tasks has therefore become essential for their responsible adoption. This survey identifies key challenges in evaluating LLMs for legal tasks grounded in real-world legal practice. We analyze the major difficulties involved in assessing LLM performance in the legal domain, including outcome correctness, reasoning reliability, and trustworthiness. Building on these challenges, we review and categorize existing evaluation methods and benchmarks according to their task design, datasets, and evaluation metrics. We further discuss the extent to which current approaches address these challenges, highlight their limitations, and outline future research directions toward more realistic, reliable, and legally grounded evaluation frameworks for LLMs in legal domains.