Fardeen Sadab

Adib Sakhawat, Fardeen Sadab, Atik Shahriar

Multilingual embedding models are deployed under the assumption that cross-lingual retrieval is symmetric: if a query in language A retrieves its translation in language B, the reverse should also hold. In practice it does not. Using a parallel corpus of 6,518 idiomatic and proverbial expressions in English, Bangla, Hindi, and Arabic, embedded by five production-grade encoders (Gemini, Mistral, OpenAI-L, OpenAI-S, Qwen), we formalise this failure as a deficit in mutual nearest-neighbour reciprocity and test a single mechanistic claim: among the geometric pathologies of multilingual spaces, hubness, not anisotropy, centroid drift, or magnitude, is the dominant causal driver. Across five pre-registered experiments with falsification conditions specified in advance, hub mass dominates a joint regression on reciprocity (49.5% dominance share, 1.68x the next predictor; partial R^2 = 0.302 versus 0.003 for anisotropy), while a hub-aware score correction (CSLS) closes 63.5% of the worst-to-best reciprocity gap and yields a mean within-model effect size 130x larger than surgical hub-vector ablation. The latter contrast pinpoints the mechanism: hubness is a pathology of the similarity metric, not of individual hub vectors. We resolve the well-known anisotropy-hubness paradox by showing the two are statistically dissociable, and we recommend replacing cosine similarity with CSLS as the default retrieval metric for multilingual embedding pipelines.

Adib Sakhawat, Fardeen Sadab, Rakin Shahriar

Evaluating the strategic reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) requires moving beyond static benchmarks to dynamic, multi-turn interactions. We introduce AIDG (Adversarial Information Deduction Game), a game-theoretic framework that probes the asymmetry between information extraction (active deduction) and information containment (state maintenance) in dialogue. We propose two complementary tasks: AIDG-I, measuring pragmatic strategy in social deduction, and AIDG-II, measuring constraint satisfaction in a structured "20 Questions" setting. Across 439 games with six frontier LLMs, we observe a clear capability asymmetry: models perform substantially better at containment than deduction, with a 350 ELO advantage on defense;(Cohen's d = 5.47). We identify two bottlenecks driving this gap: (1) Information Dynamics, where confirmation strategies are 7.75x more effective than blind deduction (p < 0.00001), and (2) Constraint Adherence, where instruction-following degrades under conversational load, accounting for 41.3% of deductive failures. These findings suggest that while LLMs excel at local defensive coherence, they struggle with the global state tracking required for strategic inquiry.

Adib Sakhawat, Fardeen Sadab

Evaluating the social intelligence of Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly requires moving beyond static text generation toward dynamic, adversarial interaction. We introduce the Adversarial Resource Extraction Game (AREG), a benchmark that operationalizes persuasion and resistance as a multi-turn, zero-sum negotiation over financial resources. Using a round-robin tournament across frontier models, AREG enables joint evaluation of offensive (persuasion) and defensive (resistance) capabilities within a single interactional framework. Our analysis provides evidence that these capabilities are weakly correlated ($ρ= 0.33$) and empirically dissociated: strong persuasive performance does not reliably predict strong resistance, and vice versa. Across all evaluated models, resistance scores exceed persuasion scores, indicating a systematic defensive advantage in adversarial dialogue settings. Further linguistic analysis suggests that interaction structure plays a central role in these outcomes. Incremental commitment-seeking strategies are associated with higher extraction success, while verification-seeking responses are more prevalent in successful defenses than explicit refusal. Together, these findings indicate that social influence in LLMs is not a monolithic capability and that evaluation frameworks focusing on persuasion alone may overlook asymmetric behavioral vulnerabilities.