Linbo Cao

Jinman Zhao, Zifan Qian, Linbo Cao et al.

Role-play in large language models (LLMs) enhances their ability to generate contextually relevant and high-quality responses by simulating diverse cognitive perspectives. However, our study identifies significant risks associated with this technique. First, we demonstrate that autotuning, a method used to auto-select models' roles based on the question, can lead to the generation of harmful outputs, even when the model is tasked with adopting neutral roles. Second, we investigate how different roles affect the likelihood of generating biased or harmful content. Through testing on benchmarks containing stereotypical and harmful questions, we find that role-play consistently amplifies the risk of biased outputs. Our results underscore the need for careful consideration of both role simulation and tuning processes when deploying LLMs in sensitive or high-stakes contexts.

Linbo Cao, Jinman Zhao

As frontier language models increasingly saturate standard QA benchmarks, concerns about data contamination, memorization, and escalating dataset creation costs persist. We propose a debate-driven evaluation paradigm that transforms any existing QA dataset into structured adversarial debates--where one model is given the official answer to defend, and another constructs and defends an alternative answer--adjudicated by a judge model blind to the correct solution. By forcing multi-round argumentation, this approach substantially increases difficulty while penalizing shallow memorization, yet reuses QA items to reduce curation overhead. We make two main contributions: (1) an evaluation pipeline to systematically convert QA tasks into debate-based assessments, and (2) a public benchmark that demonstrates our paradigm's effectiveness on a subset of MMLU-Pro questions, complete with standardized protocols and reference models. Empirical results validate the robustness of the method and its effectiveness against data contamination--a Llama 3.1 model fine-tuned on test questions showed dramatic accuracy improvements (50% -> 82%) but performed worse in debates. Results also show that even weaker judges can reliably differentiate stronger debaters, highlighting how debate-based evaluation can scale to future, more capable systems while maintaining a fraction of the cost of creating new benchmarks. Overall, our framework underscores that "pretraining on the test set is no longer all you need," offering a sustainable path for measuring the genuine reasoning ability of advanced language models.