Anna Sotnikova

Beatriz Borges, Negar Foroutan, Deniz Bayazit et al.

AI assistants are being increasingly used by students enrolled in higher education institutions. While these tools provide opportunities for improved teaching and education, they also pose significant challenges for assessment and learning outcomes. We conceptualize these challenges through the lens of vulnerability, the potential for university assessments and learning outcomes to be impacted by student use of generative AI. We investigate the potential scale of this vulnerability by measuring the degree to which AI assistants can complete assessment questions in standard university-level STEM courses. Specifically, we compile a novel dataset of textual assessment questions from 50 courses at EPFL and evaluate whether two AI assistants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adequately answer these questions. We use eight prompting strategies to produce responses and find that GPT-4 answers an average of 65.8% of questions correctly, and can even produce the correct answer across at least one prompting strategy for 85.1% of questions. When grouping courses in our dataset by degree program, these systems already pass non-project assessments of large numbers of core courses in various degree programs, posing risks to higher education accreditation that will be amplified as these models improve. Our results call for revising program-level assessment design in higher education in light of advances in generative AI.

Yang Trista Cao, Anna Sotnikova, Hal Daumé et al.

NLP models trained on text have been shown to reproduce human stereotypes, which can magnify harms to marginalized groups when systems are deployed at scale. We adapt the Agency-Belief-Communion (ABC) stereotype model of Koch et al. (2016) from social psychology as a framework for the systematic study and discovery of stereotypic group-trait associations in language models (LMs). We introduce the sensitivity test (SeT) for measuring stereotypical associations from language models. To evaluate SeT and other measures using the ABC model, we collect group-trait judgments from U.S.-based subjects to compare with English LM stereotypes. Finally, we extend this framework to measure LM stereotyping of intersectional identities.

Mete Ismayilzada, Renqing Cuomao, Daniil Yurshevich et al.

Creative problem-solving requires combining multiple cognitive abilities, including logical reasoning, lateral thinking, analogy-making, and commonsense knowledge, to discover insights that connect seemingly unrelated pieces of information. However, most existing benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) evaluate only specific components of this process. Moreover, many creativity-oriented benchmarks rely on artificially constructed brainteasers or contrived scenarios that do not reflect how creative problem-solving occurs in real-world settings. To address this gap, we introduce CresOWLve, a benchmark for evaluating creative problem-solving using puzzles grounded in real-world knowledge. Problems in CresOWLve require employing multiple creative thinking strategies, retrieving facts from diverse domains, and creatively combining them to arrive at a solution. Evaluating several frontier non-thinking and thinking LLMs, we show that CresOWLve remains highly challenging. Our analysis reveals a consistent performance gap: models perform substantially better on factual questions than on creative ones (up to a -17% drop). While models can often retrieve the relevant knowledge, they struggle to form the non-obvious creative connections required to integrate this information and arrive at the correct answer.

Jérémy Barghorn, Anna Sotnikova, Sacha Friedli et al.

Large-enrollment university courses face persistent challenges in providing timely and scalable instructional support. While generative AI holds promise, its effective use depends on reliability and pedagogical alignment. We present a human-centered case study of AI-assisted support in a Calculus I course, implemented in close collaboration with the course instructor. We developed a system to answer students' questions on a discussion forum, fine-tuning a lightweight language model on 2,588 historical student-instructor interactions. The model achieved 75.3% accuracy on a benchmark of 150 representative questions annotated by five instructors, and in 36% of cases, its responses were rated equal to or better than instructor answers. Post-deployment student survey (N = 105) indicated that students valued the alignment of the responses with the course materials and their immediate availability, while still relying on the instructor verification for trust. We highlight the importance of hybrid human-AI workflows for safe and effective course support.

Andrew M. Bean, Ryan Othniel Kearns, Angelika Romanou et al.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is crucial for both assessing their capabilities and identifying safety or robustness issues prior to deployment. Reliably measuring abstract and complex phenomena such as 'safety' and 'robustness' requires strong construct validity, that is, having measures that represent what matters to the phenomenon. With a team of 29 expert reviewers, we conduct a systematic review of 445 LLM benchmarks from leading conferences in natural language processing and machine learning. Across the reviewed articles, we find patterns related to the measured phenomena, tasks, and scoring metrics which undermine the validity of the resulting claims. To address these shortcomings, we provide eight key recommendations and detailed actionable guidance to researchers and practitioners in developing LLM benchmarks.

Angelika Romanou, Negar Foroutan, Anna Sotnikova et al.

The performance differential of large language models (LLM) between languages hinders their effective deployment in many regions, inhibiting the potential economic and societal value of generative AI tools in many communities. However, the development of functional LLMs in many languages (\ie, multilingual LLMs) is bottlenecked by the lack of high-quality evaluation resources in languages other than English. Moreover, current practices in multilingual benchmark construction often translate English resources, ignoring the regional and cultural knowledge of the environments in which multilingual systems would be used. In this work, we construct an evaluation suite of 197,243 QA pairs from local exam sources to measure the capabilities of multilingual LLMs in a variety of regional contexts. Our novel resource, INCLUDE, is a comprehensive knowledge- and reasoning-centric benchmark across 44 written languages that evaluates multilingual LLMs for performance in the actual language environments where they would be deployed.

Yang Trista Cao, Anna Sotnikova, Jieyu Zhao et al.

Multilingual large language models have gained prominence for their proficiency in processing and generating text across languages. Like their monolingual counterparts, multilingual models are likely to pick up on stereotypes and other social biases present in their training data. In this paper, we study a phenomenon we term stereotype leakage, which refers to how training a model multilingually may lead to stereotypes expressed in one language showing up in the models' behaviour in another. We propose a measurement framework for stereotype leakage and investigate its effect across English, Russian, Chinese, and Hindi and with GPT-3.5, mT5, and mBERT. Our findings show a noticeable leakage of positive, negative, and non-polar associations across all languages. We find that of these models, GPT-3.5 exhibits the most stereotype leakage, and Hindi is the most susceptible to leakage effects. WARNING: This paper contains model outputs which could be offensive in nature.

Karina Halevy, Anna Sotnikova, Badr AlKhamissi et al. · cmu

Model editing has emerged as a cost-effective strategy to update knowledge stored in language models. However, model editing can have unintended consequences after edits are applied: information unrelated to the edits can also be changed, and other general behaviors of the model can be wrongly altered. In this work, we investigate how model editing methods unexpectedly amplify model biases post-edit. We introduce a novel benchmark dataset, Seesaw-CF, for measuring bias-related harms of model editing and conduct the first in-depth investigation of how different weight-editing methods impact model bias. Specifically, we focus on biases with respect to demographic attributes such as race, geographic origin, and gender, as well as qualitative flaws in long-form texts generated by edited language models. We find that edited models exhibit, to various degrees, more biased behavior as they become less confident in attributes for Asian, African, and South American subjects. Furthermore, edited models amplify sexism and xenophobia in text generations while remaining seemingly coherent and logical. Finally, editing facts about place of birth, country of citizenship, or gender have particularly negative effects on the model's knowledge about unrelated features like field of work.

Alejandro Hernández-Cano, Alexander Hägele, Allen Hao Huang et al. · eth-zurich

We present Apertus, a fully open suite of large language models (LLMs) designed to address two systemic shortcomings in today's open model ecosystem: data compliance and multilingual representation. Unlike many prior models that release weights without reproducible data pipelines or regard for content-owner rights, Apertus models are pretrained exclusively on openly available data, retroactively respecting robots.txt exclusions and filtering for non-permissive, toxic, and personally identifiable content. To mitigate risks of memorization, we adopt the Goldfish objective during pretraining, strongly suppressing verbatim recall of data while retaining downstream task performance. The Apertus models also expand multilingual coverage, training on 15T tokens from over 1800 languages, with ~40% of pretraining data allocated to non-English content. Released at 8B and 70B scales, Apertus approaches state-of-the-art results among fully open models on multilingual benchmarks, rivalling or surpassing open-weight counterparts. Beyond model weights, we release all scientific artifacts from our development cycle with a permissive license, including data preparation scripts, checkpoints, evaluation suites, and training code, enabling transparent audit and extension.

Aymeric de Chillaz, Anna Sotnikova, Patrick Jermann et al.

Generative AI systems have rapidly advanced, with multimodal input capabilities enabling reasoning beyond text-based tasks. In education, these advancements could influence assessment design and question answering, presenting both opportunities and challenges. To investigate these effects, we introduce a high-quality dataset of 201 university-level STEM questions, manually annotated with features such as image type, role, problem complexity, and question format. Our study analyzes how these features affect generative AI performance compared to students. We evaluate four model families with five prompting strategies, comparing results to the average of 546 student responses per question. Although the best model correctly answers on average 58.5 % of the questions using majority vote aggregation, human participants consistently outperform AI on questions involving visual components. Interestingly, human performance remains stable across question features but varies by subject, whereas AI performance is susceptible to both subject matter and question features. Finally, we provide actionable insights for educators, demonstrating how question design can enhance academic integrity by leveraging features that challenge current AI systems without increasing the cognitive burden for students.