Papers by Jiaxin Hong
M³GQA: A Multi-Entity Multi-Hop Multi-Setting Graph Question Answering Benchmark (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | GraphRAG systems have achieved remarkable progress in enhancing performance and reliability of large language models. |
| Approach: | They propose a GraphRAG benchmark focusing on multi-entity queries with six settings for comprehensive evaluation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can construct diverse data with semantically correct ground-truth reasoning paths. |
Infinite Babble: Inflating 3D Vision-Language Model Inference Overhead via Adversarial Geometric Perturbation (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | 3D Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are critical cognitive backbone for spatial intelligence, but their reliance on autoregressive decoding introduces a fundamental vulnerability regarding inference efficiency. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that triggers computational and economic exhaustion in 3D-VLMs by injecting imperceptible noise that forces the model into a state of pathological verbosity. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework amplifies output length and energy consumption by up to 6.45, demonstrating a potent capability to drain system resources. |
Causally Modeling the Linguistic and Social Factors that Predict Email Response (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Yinuo Xu, Hong Chen, Sushrita Rakshit, Aparna Ananthasubramaniam, Omkar Yadav, Mingqian Zheng, Michael Jiang, Lechen Zhang, Bowen Yi, Kenan Alkiek, Abraham Israeli, Bangzhao Shu, Hua Shen, Jiaxin Pei, Haotian Zhang, Miriam Schirmer, David Jurgens
| Challenge: | a key intent behind many emails is to get a reply from the recipient. |
| Approach: | They propose to model the intents, expectations, and responsiveness in email exchanges by using a dataset containing 1800 emails annotated with nuanced types of intents and expectations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is based on 1800 emails annotated with nuanced types of intents and expectations . it shows that social status, argumentation, and strength of social connection influence email response rates . |