Ojasva Saxena

Shreya Gupta, Ojasva Saxena, Arghodeep Nandi et al.

Podcasts have become a central arena for shaping public opinion, making them a vital source for understanding contemporary discourse. Their typically unscripted, multi-themed, and conversational style offers a rich but complex form of data. To analyze how podcasts persuade and inform, we must examine their narrative structures -- specifically, the narrative frames they employ. The fluid and conversational nature of podcasts presents a significant challenge for automated analysis. We show that existing large language models, typically trained on more structured text such as news articles, struggle to capture the subtle cues that human listeners rely on to identify narrative frames. As a result, current approaches fall short of accurately analyzing podcast narratives at scale. To solve this, we develop and evaluate a fine-tuned BERT model that explicitly links narrative frames to specific entities mentioned in the conversation, effectively grounding the abstract frame in concrete details. Our approach then uses these granular frame labels and correlates them with high-level topics to reveal broader discourse trends. The primary contributions of this paper are: (i) a novel frame-labeling methodology that more closely aligns with human judgment for messy, conversational data, and (ii) a new analysis that uncovers the systematic relationship between what is being discussed (the topic) and how it is being presented (the frame), offering a more robust framework for studying influence in digital media.

Arghodeep Nandi, Ojasva Saxena, Tanmoy Chakraborty

Reasoning traces produced by generative language models are increasingly used for tasks ranging from mathematical problem solving to automated fact checking. However, existing evaluation methods remain largely mechanical and fail to capture human-centric notions of reasoning quality in a way that generalizes across varied and progressively degraded reasoning. We introduce MarODE, an offline evaluation framework that assigns quality scores to reasoning traces. Its effectiveness is assessed using human-centric perturbations and human judgments, which jointly evaluate the fundamental dimensions of an evaluation metric - goodness and soundness. The approach is grounded in a Markovian formulation of reasoning progression and an ordinary differential equation based characterization of trace dynamics, enabling efficient evaluation of reasoning quality. In a large-scale evaluation, MarODE outperforms existing baselines by over 250% under Somers' D correlation. Our results emphasize the value of theory-driven evaluation frameworks as reasoning traces become central to language model-based systems.

Abhinav P M, Ojasva Saxena, Oswald C et al.

The extent to which large language models (LLMs) can perform culturally grounded reasoning across non-English languages remains underexplored. This paper examines the reasoning and self-assessment abilities of LLMs across seven major Indian languages-Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu. We introduce a multilingual riddle dataset combining traditional riddles with context-reconstructed variants and evaluate five LLMs-Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Mistral-Saba, LLaMA 4 Scout, and LLaMA 4 Maverick-under seven prompting strategies. In the first stage, we assess riddle-solving performance and find that while Gemini 2.5 Pro performs best overall, few-shot methods yield only marginal gains, and accuracy varies notably across languages. In the second stage, we conduct a self-evaluation experiment to measure reasoning consistency. The results reveal a key finding: a model's initial accuracy is inversely correlated with its ability to identify its own mistakes. Top-performing models such as Gemini 2.5 Pro are overconfident (4.34% True Negative Rate), whereas lower-performing models like LLaMA 4 Scout are substantially more self-aware (42.09% True Negative Rate). These results point to clear gaps in multilingual reasoning and highlight the need for models that not only reason effectively but also recognize their own limitations.

Weihua Zheng, Zhengyuan Liu, Tanmoy Chakraborty et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are now used worldwide, yet their multimodal understanding and reasoning often degrade outside Western, high-resource settings. We propose MMA-ASIA, a comprehensive framework to evaluate LLMs' cultural awareness with a focus on Asian contexts. MMA-ASIA centers on a human-curated, multilingual, and multimodally aligned multiple-choice benchmark covering 8 Asian countries and 10 languages, comprising 27,000 questions; over 79 percent require multi-step reasoning grounded in cultural context, moving beyond simple memorization. To our knowledge, this is the first dataset aligned at the input level across three modalities: text, image (visual question answering), and speech. This enables direct tests of cross-modal transfer. Building on this benchmark, we propose a five-dimensional evaluation protocol that measures: (i) cultural-awareness disparities across countries, (ii) cross-lingual consistency, (iii) cross-modal consistency, (iv) cultural knowledge generalization, and (v) grounding validity. To ensure rigorous assessment, a Cultural Awareness Grounding Validation Module detects "shortcut learning" by checking whether the requisite cultural knowledge supports correct answers. Finally, through comparative model analysis, attention tracing, and an innovative Vision-ablated Prefix Replay (VPR) method, we probe why models diverge across languages and modalities, offering actionable insights for building culturally reliable multimodal LLMs.