Hongyuan Lu
Publications
From Abstract to Contextual: What LLMs Still Cannot Do in Mathematics
Large language models now solve many benchmark math problems at near-expert levels, yet this progress has not fully translated into reliable performance in real-world applications. We study this gap through contextual mathematical reasoning, where the mathematical core must be formulated from descriptive scenarios. We introduce ContextMATH, a benchmark that repurposes AIME and MATH-500 problems into two contextual settings: Scenario Grounding (SG), which embeds abstract problems into realistic narratives without increasing reasoning complexity, and Complexity Scaling (CS), which transforms explicit conditions into sub-problems to capture how constraints often appear in practice. Evaluating 61 proprietary and open-source models, we observe sharp drops: on average, open-source models decline by 13 and 34 points on SG and CS, while proprietary models drop by 13 and 20. Error analysis shows that errors are dominated by incorrect problem formulation, with formulation accuracy declining as original problem difficulty increases. Correct formulation emerges as a prerequisite for success, and its sufficiency improves with model scale, indicating that larger models advance in both understanding and reasoning. Nevertheless, formulation and reasoning remain two complementary bottlenecks that limit contextual mathematical problem solving. Finally, we find that fine-tuning with scenario data improves performance, whereas formulation-only training is ineffective. However, performance gaps are only partially alleviated, highlighting contextual mathematical reasoning as a central unsolved challenge for LLMs.
From Abstract to Contextual: What LLMs Still Cannot Do in Mathematics
Large language models now solve many benchmark math problems at near-expert levels, yet this progress has not fully translated into reliable performance in real-world applications. We study this gap through contextual mathematical reasoning, where the mathematical core must be formulated from descriptive scenarios. We introduce ContextMATH, a benchmark that repurposes AIME and MATH-500 problems into two contextual settings: Scenario Grounding (SG), which embeds abstract problems into realistic narratives without increasing reasoning complexity, and Complexity Scaling (CS), which transforms explicit conditions into sub-problems to capture how constraints often appear in practice. Evaluating 61 proprietary and open-source models, we observe sharp drops: on average, open-source models decline by 13 and 34 points on SG and CS, while proprietary models drop by 13 and 20. Error analysis shows that errors are dominated by incorrect problem formulation, with formulation accuracy declining as original problem difficulty increases. Correct formulation emerges as a prerequisite for success, and its sufficiency improves with model scale, indicating that larger models advance in both understanding and reasoning. Nevertheless, formulation and reasoning remain two complementary bottlenecks that limit contextual mathematical problem solving. Finally, we find that fine-tuning with scenario data improves performance, whereas formulation-only training is ineffective. However, performance gaps are only partially alleviated, highlighting contextual mathematical reasoning as a central unsolved challenge for LLMs.
VERHallu: Evaluating and Mitigating Event Relation Hallucination in Video Large Language Models
Video Large Language Models (VideoLLMs) exhibit various types of hallucinations. Existing research has primarily focused on hallucinations involving the presence of events, objects, and scenes in videos, while largely neglecting event relation hallucination. In this paper, we introduce a novel benchmark for evaluating the Video Event Relation Hallucination, named VERHallu. This benchmark focuses on causal, temporal, and subevent relations between events, encompassing three types of tasks: relation classification, question answering, and counterfactual question answering, for a comprehensive evaluation of event relation hallucination. Additionally, it features counterintuitive video scenarios that deviate from typical pretraining distributions, with each sample accompanied by human-annotated candidates covering both vision-language and pure language biases. Our analysis reveals that current state-of-the-art VideoLLMs struggle with dense-event relation reasoning, often relying on prior knowledge due to insufficient use of frame-level cues. Although these models demonstrate strong grounding capabilities for key events, they often overlook the surrounding subevents, leading to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of event relations. To tackle this, we propose a Key-Frame Propagating (KFP) strategy, which reallocates frame-level attention within intermediate layers to enhance multi-event understanding. Experiments show it effectively mitigates the event relation hallucination without affecting inference speed.
Stephanie2: Thinking, Waiting, and Making Decisions Like Humans in Step-by-Step AI Social Chat
Instant-messaging human social chat typically progresses through a sequence of short messages. Existing step-by-step AI chatting systems typically split a one-shot generation into multiple messages and send them sequentially, but they lack an active waiting mechanism and exhibit unnatural message pacing. In order to address these issues, we propose Stephanie2, a novel next-generation step-wise decision-making dialogue agent. With active waiting and message-pace adaptation, Stephanie2 explicitly decides at each step whether to send or wait, and models latency as the sum of thinking time and typing time to achieve more natural pacing. We further introduce a time-window-based dual-agent dialogue system to generate pseudo dialogue histories for human and automatic evaluations. Experiments show that Stephanie2 clearly outperforms Stephanie1 on metrics such as naturalness and engagement, and achieves a higher pass rate on human evaluation with the role identification Turing test.