Sai Suresh Macharla Vasu

Md Abdul Kadir, Sai Suresh Macharla Vasu, Sidharth S. Nair et al.

Auditors rely on Journal Entry Tests (JETs) to detect anomalies in tax-related ledger records, but rule-based methods generate overwhelming false positives and struggle with subtle irregularities. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as anomaly detectors in double-entry bookkeeping. Benchmarking SoTA LLMs such as LLaMA and Gemma on both synthetic and real-world anonymized ledgers, we compare them against JETs and machine learning baselines. Our results show that LLMs consistently outperform traditional rule-based JETs and classical ML baselines, while also providing natural-language explanations that enhance interpretability. These results highlight the potential of \textbf{AI-augmented auditing}, where human auditors collaborate with foundation models to strengthen financial integrity.

Manon Kempermann, Sai Suresh Macharla Vasu, Mahalakshmi Raveenthiran et al.

Safety evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically focus on universal risks like dangerous capabilities or undesirable propensities. However, millions use LLMs for personal advice on high-stakes topics like finance and health, where harms are context-dependent rather than universal. While frameworks like the OECD's AI classification recognize the need to assess individual risks, user-welfare safety evaluations remain underdeveloped. We argue that developing such evaluations is non-trivial due to fundamental questions about accounting for user context in evaluation design. In this exploratory study, we evaluated advice on finance and health from GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro across user profiles of varying vulnerability. First, we demonstrate that evaluators must have access to rich user context: identical LLM responses were rated significantly safer by context-blind evaluators than by those aware of user circumstances, with safety scores for high-vulnerability users dropping from safe (5/7) to somewhat unsafe (3/7). One might assume this gap could be addressed by creating realistic user prompts containing key contextual information. However, our second study challenges this: we rerun the evaluation on prompts containing context users report they would disclose, finding no significant improvement. Our work establishes that effective user-welfare safety evaluation requires evaluators to assess responses against diverse user profiles, as realistic user context disclosure alone proves insufficient, particularly for vulnerable populations. By demonstrating a methodology for context-aware evaluation, this study provides both a starting point for such assessments and foundational evidence that evaluating individual welfare demands approaches distinct from existing universal-risk frameworks. We publish our code and dataset to aid future developments.

Sai Suresh Macharla Vasu, Ivaxi Sheth, Hui-Po Wang et al.

The adoption of large language models (LLMs) is transforming the peer review process, from assisting reviewers in writing more detailed evaluations to generating entire reviews automatically. While these capabilities offer exciting opportunities, they also raise critical concerns about fairness and reliability. In this paper, we investigate bias in LLM-generated peer reviews by conducting controlled experiments on sensitive metadata, including author affiliation and gender. Our analysis consistently shows affiliation bias favoring institutions highly ranked on common academic rankings. Additionally, we find some gender preferences, which, even though subtle in magnitude, have the potential to compound over time. Notably, we uncover implicit biases that become more evident with token-based soft ratings.