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.

In many reasoning tasks, large language models (LLMs) rely on structured external knowledge, such as graphs and tables, which is typically linearized into sequential token representations. However, even when sufficient knowledge is available, LLMs can still produce hallucinated outputs, and the underlying mechanisms behind such failures remain poorly understood. We investigate these mechanisms and find that hallucinations arise from systematic internal dynamics rather than random noise. First, attention disproportionately concentrates toward shortcut-like structural cues rather than distributing across the full context. Second, feed-forward representations fail to ground the provided knowledge, causing the model to revert to parametric memory. Moreover, our results indicate that hallucination is consistently associated with failures in semantic grounding within feed-forward layers, while attention allocation exhibits greater task-dependent variability. Finally, we show that these mechanistic patterns generalize beyond single-hop graphs to multi-hop and tabular settings, enabling effective hallucination detection across structured knowledge formats.

Test-time computing approaches, which leverage additional computational resources during inference, have been proven effective in enhancing large language model performance. This work introduces a novel, linearly scaling approach, TestNUC, that improves test-time predictions by leveraging the local consistency of neighboring unlabeled data-it classifies an input instance by considering not only the model’s prediction on that instance but also on neighboring unlabeled instances. We evaluate TestNUC across eight diverse datasets, spanning intent classification, topic mining, domain discovery, and emotion detection, demonstrating its consistent superiority over baseline methods such as standard prompting and self-consistency. Furthermore, TestNUC can be seamlessly integrated with existing test-time computing approaches, substantially boosting their performance. Our analysis reveals that TestNUC scales effectively with increasing amounts of unlabeled data and performs robustly across different embedding models, making it practical for real-world applications. Our code is available at https://github.com/HenryPengZou/TestNUC.

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.

Language models can be manipulated by adversarial attacks, which introduce subtle perturbations to input data. While recent attack methods can achieve a relatively high attack success rate (ASR), we’ve observed that the generated adversarial examples have a different data distribution compared with the original examples. Specifically, these adversarial examples exhibit reduced confidence levels and greater divergence from the training data distribution. Consequently, they are easy to detect using straightforward detection methods, diminishing the efficacy of such attacks. To address this issue, we propose a Distribution-Aware Adversarial Attack (DA³) method. DA³ considers the distribution shifts of adversarial examples to improve attacks’ effectiveness under detection methods. We further design a novel evaluation metric, the Non-detectable Attack Success Rate (NASR), which integrates both ASR and detectability for the attack task. We conduct experiments on four widely used datasets to validate the attack effectiveness and transferability of adversarial examples generated by DA³ against both the white-box BERT-base and RoBERTa-base models and the black-box LLaMA2-7b model.