Autumn Toney-Wails

Rebecca Ansell, Autumn Toney-Wails

Deducing whodunit proves challenging for LLM agents. In this paper, we implement a text-based multi-agent version of the classic board game Clue as a rule-based testbed for evaluating multi-step deductive reasoning, with six agents drawn from GPT-4o-mini and Gemini-2.5-Flash. We further investigate whether fine-tuning on structured logic puzzles transfers to improved in-game reasoning and gameplay. Across 18 simulated games, agents achieve only four correct wins, indicating difficulty in maintaining consistent deductive reasoning over the course of a full game. Additionally, we find that fine-tuning does not reliably improve performance and, in some cases, appears to increase reasoning volume without improving reasoning precision.

Autumn Toney-Wails, Ryan Wails

Reliable uncertainty quantification (UQ) is essential for ensuring trustworthy downstream use of large language models, especially when they are deployed in decision-support and other knowledge-intensive applications. Model certainty can be estimated from token logits, with derived probability and entropy values offering insight into performance on the prompt task. However, this approach may be inadequate for probabilistic scenarios, where the probabilities of token outputs are expected to align with the theoretical probabilities of the possible outcomes. We investigate the relationship between token certainty and alignment with theoretical probability distributions in well-defined probabilistic scenarios. Using GPT-4.1 and DeepSeek-Chat, we evaluate model responses to ten prompts involving probability (e.g., roll a six-sided die), both with and without explicit probability cues in the prompt (e.g., roll a fair six-sided die). We measure two dimensions: (1) response validity with respect to scenario constraints, and (2) alignment between token-level output probabilities and theoretical probabilities. Our results indicate that, while both models achieve perfect in-domain response accuracy across all prompt scenarios, their token-level probability and entropy values consistently diverge from the corresponding theoretical distributions.

Autumn Toney-Wails, Christian Schoeberl, James Dunham

Identifying scientific publications that are within a dynamic field of research often requires costly annotation by subject-matter experts. Resources like widely-accepted classification criteria or field taxonomies are unavailable for a domain like artificial intelligence (AI), which spans emerging topics and technologies. We address these challenges by inferring a functional definition of AI research from existing expert labels, and then evaluating state-of-the-art chatbot models on the task of expert data annotation. Using the arXiv publication database as ground-truth, we experiment with prompt engineering for GPT chatbot models to identify an alternative, automated expert annotation pipeline that assigns AI labels with 94% accuracy. For comparison, we fine-tune SPECTER, a transformer language model pre-trained on scientific publications, that achieves 96% accuracy (only 2% higher than GPT) on classifying AI publications. Our results indicate that with effective prompt engineering, chatbots can be used as reliable data annotators even where subject-area expertise is required. To evaluate the utility of chatbot-annotated datasets on downstream classification tasks, we train a new classifier on GPT-labeled data and compare its performance to the arXiv-trained model. The classifier trained on GPT-labeled data outperforms the arXiv-trained model by nine percentage points, achieving 82% accuracy.

Autumn Toney-Wails, Aylin Caliskan

Word embeddings learn implicit biases from linguistic regularities captured by word co-occurrence statistics. By extending methods that quantify human-like biases in word embeddings, we introduceValNorm, a novel intrinsic evaluation task and method to quantify the valence dimension of affect in human-rated word sets from social psychology. We apply ValNorm on static word embeddings from seven languages (Chinese, English, German, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish) and from historical English text spanning 200 years. ValNorm achieves consistently high accuracy in quantifying the valence of non-discriminatory, non-social group word sets. Specifically, ValNorm achieves a Pearson correlation of r=0.88 for human judgment scores of valence for 399 words collected to establish pleasantness norms in English. In contrast, we measure gender stereotypes using the same set of word embeddings and find that social biases vary across languages. Our results indicate that valence associations of non-discriminatory, non-social group words represent widely-shared associations, in seven languages and over 200 years.