Unit test generation has become a promising and important use case for Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing evaluation benchmarks for LLM unit test generation primarily focus on function- or class-level code (single-file) rather than on more practical, challenging multi-file codebases.To address this limitation, we propose MultiFileTest, a multi-file-level benchmark for unit test generation covering Python, Java, and JavaScript. MultiFileTest features 20 high-quality, moderate-sized projects per language. We evaluate eleven frontier LLMs on MultiFileTest, and the results show that most tested LLMs exhibit moderate performance on MultiFileTest, highlighting the benchmark’s inherent difficulty.We also conduct a thorough error analysis, which shows that even advanced LLMs, such as Gemini 3.0 Pro, exhibit basic yet critical errors, including executability and cascade errors. Motivated by this observation, we further evaluate these frontier LLMs under manual error-fixing and self-error-fixing scenarios to assess their potential when equipped with error-fixing mechanisms.Our dataset is available at MultiFileTest.

Model editing aims to update large language models (LLMs) with new knowledge without full retraining, but existing methods mainly focus on fact-level knowledge. Rules that support mathematical and scientific reasoning must remain consistent across formulas, descriptions, and instances, making localized updates less effective for rule-level editing. In this paper, we construct RuleEdit-200, a manually verified benchmark of 200 mathematical and physical rules, each instantiated in formula, description, and instance forms. Using this benchmark, we conduct fine-grained causal tracing on four LLMs and identify a form-specific layer-wise separation of rule knowledge: formulas and descriptions are associated with earlier layers, whereas instances rely on a distinct set of middle-layer representations. This finding suggests that rule-level editing requires separate updates for different forms. Based on this insight, we propose Distributed Multi-Layer Editing (DMLE), which updates formulas, descriptions and instances at their corresponding layer ranges. Experiments on RuleEdit-200 show that DMLE remains competitive on standard editing metrics while substantially improving rule-level editing, with average gains of 18.22% and 61.00% in instance portability and rule understanding over the best baseline on each model.

Claim: This work is not advocating the use of LLMs for paper (meta-)reviewing. Instead, wepresent a comparative analysis to identify and distinguish LLM activities from human activities. Two research goals: i) Enable better recognition of instances when someone implicitly uses LLMs for reviewing activities; ii) Increase community awareness that LLMs, and AI in general, are currently inadequate for performing tasks that require a high level of expertise and nuanced judgment.This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload?This study focuses on the topic of LLMs as NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLMs in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with “deficiency” labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) “LLMs as Reviewers”, how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) “LLMs as Metareviewers”, how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.