Lucas Craig

Sree Bhattacharyya, Samarth Khanna, Leona Chen et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in settings where reliable self-assessment is critical. Assessing model reliability has evolved from using probabilistic correctness estimates to, more recently, eliciting verbalized confidence. Confidence, however, has been shown to be an inconsistent and overoptimistic predictor of model correctness. Drawing on cognitive appraisal theory, a framework from human psychology that decomposes self-evaluation into multiple components, we propose a multidimensional perspective on model self-assessment. We elicit six appraisal-based dimensions of self-assessment, alongside confidence, and evaluate their utility for predicting model failure across 12 LLMs and 38 tasks spanning eight domains. We find that competence-related appraisal dimensions, particularly effort and ability, consistently match or outperform confidence across most settings. Effort additionally yields less overoptimistic estimates that remain stable across model sizes. In contrast, affective dimensions provide marginally predictive signals. Furthermore, the most informative dimension varies systematically with task characteristics: effort is most predictive for reasoning-intensive tasks, while ability and confidence dominate on retrieval-oriented tasks. Broadly, our findings indicate that structured multidimensional self-assessment is a promising approach to improving the reliability and safety of language model deployment across diverse real-world settings.

Ehsanul Kabir, Lucas Craig, Shagufta Mehnaz

As machine learning (ML) technologies become more prevalent in privacy-sensitive areas like healthcare and finance, eventually incorporating sensitive information in building data-driven algorithms, it is vital to scrutinize whether these data face any privacy leakage risks. One potential threat arises from an adversary querying trained models using the public, non-sensitive attributes of entities in the training data to infer their private, sensitive attributes, a technique known as the attribute inference attack. This attack is particularly deceptive because, while it may perform poorly in predicting sensitive attributes across the entire dataset, it excels at predicting the sensitive attributes of records from a few vulnerable groups, a phenomenon known as disparate vulnerability. This paper illustrates that an adversary can take advantage of this disparity to carry out a series of new attacks, showcasing a threat level beyond previous imagination. We first develop a novel inference attack called the disparity inference attack, which targets the identification of high-risk groups within the dataset. We then introduce two targeted variations of the attribute inference attack that can identify and exploit a vulnerable subset of the training data, marking the first instances of targeted attacks in this category, achieving significantly higher accuracy than untargeted versions. We are also the first to introduce a novel and effective disparity mitigation technique that simultaneously preserves model performance and prevents any risk of targeted attacks.

Sree Bhattacharyya, Lucas Craig, Tharun Dilliraj et al.

Affective Computing has been established as a crucial field of inquiry to advance the holistic development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. Foundation models -- especially Large Language Models (LLMs) -- have been evaluated, trained, or instruction-tuned in several past works, to become better predictors or generators of emotion. Most of these studies, however, approach emotion-related tasks in a supervised manner, assessing or training the capabilities of LLMs using discrete emotion labels associated with stimuli (e.g., text, images, video, audio). Evaluation studies, in particular, have often been limited to standard and superficial emotion-related tasks, such as the recognition of evoked or expressed emotions. In this paper, we move beyond surface-level emotion tasks to investigate how LLMs reason about emotions through cognitive dimensions. Drawing from cognitive appraisal theory, we examine whether LLMs produce coherent and plausible cognitive reasoning when reasoning about emotionally charged stimuli. We introduce a large-scale benchmark on Cognitive Reasoning for Emotions - CoRE - to evaluate internal cognitive structures implicitly used by LLMs for emotional reasoning. Through a plethora of evaluation experiments and analysis, we seek to answer: (a) Are models more likely to implicitly rely on specific cognitive appraisal dimensions?, (b) What cognitive dimensions are important for characterizing specific emotions?, and, (c) Can the internal representations of different emotion categories in LLMs be interpreted through cognitive appraisal dimensions? Our results and analyses reveal diverse reasoning patterns across different LLMs. Our benchmark and code will be made publicly available.