Author

Xuanqi Peng

View on Semantic Scholar

2 papers indexed here

We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.

Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.

Jul 2026

Presentation, Not Mechanism: A Render Confound in Deprecation-Aware Memory Evaluation

AI systems increasingly retrieve from records that revise themselves: issue threads, encyclopedic histories, policy logs, and long conversations. The challenge is not only finding relevant evidence, but deciding which claims remain in force, which were superseded, and when to abstain. Structured memories promise to solve this with typed edges, temporal updates, and conflict status, yet evaluations often change mechanism and prompt presentation together. We study this as Evidence-State Revision, comparing flat retrieval, coarse edge invalidation, and fine-grained RevisionLedger on 2,907 high-agreement questions from GitHub, multi-repo issue histories, Wikipedia, and DyKnow-style temporal streams. A render-matched control (same layout, deprecation disabled) reveals the central confound: when a value is changed and later restored, RevisionLedger appears to beat a flat baseline by +0.182, but almost all the gain comes from easier presentation; the fine-grained mechanism residual is indistinguishable from zero (+0.021 to +0.025 across two judge families). After presentation is controlled, coarse invalidation is the only mechanism that pays for current-state queries, beating the fine ledger by 0.084; the same query-sufficiency principle says provenance mainly needs retained invalidated evidence, not richer typing. Memory evaluations should hold render fixed, and deprecation-aware systems should deploy the coarsest retained state that covers their queries.

Zhao-Yang Jiang, Zhizhong Fu, Zicheng Li et al. · arXiv.org · 0 citations

Review Aug 2026

One Score, Two Decisions: Selective Prediction on the Rare-Disease Tail

Given a patient's clinical findings, a diagnostic system ranks possible diseases and must decide when to endorse its first prediction or defer it for review. This decision is usually made by thresholding the top score. Selective prediction over ranked outputs begins with two checks. First, the ranker must produce enough correct top-ranked predictions to make the target feasible. Across 2,000 patient records stratified by disease prevalence, eight small open-weight LLMs achieve at most 4.6% Recall@1 on ultra-rare diseases. At 10% coverage, even a perfect confidence ranking of their existing predictions therefore cannot reach 50% selective accuracy. More accurate models pass the same check, showing that the limit is regime-specific. Second, the confidence signal must match the decision being made. For fixed-candidate rankers, the top-two margin cancels components shared across candidates. On phenotype-only Exomiser, it selects 10% of cases at 29.0% accuracy, compared with 13.3% overall, while the top score provides no reliable gate. Yet that cancellation can remove information needed to detect whether the candidate list contains an answer. SciFact retrieval and biomedical entity linking confirm this distinction. Finally, we prove that unlabelled scores alone cannot determine whether switching to the margin will help.

Zhaoyang Jiang, Zhizhong Fu, Yunsoo Kim et al. · 0 citations