Ruchira Dhar

Ruchira Dhar, Anders Søgaard

Large language models (LLMs) are very performant connectionist systems, but do they exhibit more compositionality? More importantly, is that part of why they perform so well? We present empirical analyses across four LLM families (12 models) and three task categories, including a novel task introduced below. Our findings reveal a nuanced relationship in learning of compositional strategies by LLMs -- while scaling enhances compositional abilities, instruction tuning often has a reverse effect. Such disparity brings forth some open issues regarding the development and improvement of large language models in alignment with human cognitive capacities.

Ruchira Dhar, Qiwei Peng, Anders Søgaard

Compositionality is considered central to language abilities. As performant language systems, how do large language models (LLMs) do on compositional tasks? We evaluate adjective-noun compositionality in LLMs using two complementary setups: prompt-based functional assessment and a representational analysis of internal model states. Our results reveal a striking divergence between task performance and internal states. While LLMs reliably develop compositional representations, they fail to translate consistently into functional task success across model variants. Consequently, we highlight the importance of contrastive evaluation for obtaining a more complete understanding of model capabilities.

Ruchira Dhar, Ninell Oldenburg, Anders Soegaard

Benchmarks such as ARC, Raven-inspired tests, and the Blackbird Task are widely used to evaluate the intelligence of large language models (LLMs). Yet, the concept of intelligence remains elusive- lacking a stable definition and failing to predict performance on practical tasks such as question answering, summarization, or coding. Optimizing for such benchmarks risks misaligning evaluation with real-world utility. Our perspective is that evaluation should be grounded in generality rather than abstract notions of intelligence. We identify three assumptions that often underpin intelligence-focused evaluation: generality, stability, and realism. Through conceptual and formal analysis, we show that only generality withstands conceptual and empirical scrutiny. Intelligence is not what enables generality; generality is best understood as a multitask learning problem that directly links evaluation to measurable performance breadth and reliability. This perspective reframes how progress in AI should be assessed and proposes generality as a more stable foundation for evaluating capability across diverse and evolving tasks.

Antonia Karamolegkou, Malvina Nikandrou, Georgios Pantazopoulos et al.

This paper explores the effectiveness of Multimodal Large Language models (MLLMs) as assistive technologies for visually impaired individuals. We conduct a user survey to identify adoption patterns and key challenges users face with such technologies. Despite a high adoption rate of these models, our findings highlight concerns related to contextual understanding, cultural sensitivity, and complex scene understanding, particularly for individuals who may rely solely on them for visual interpretation. Informed by these results, we collate five user-centred tasks with image and video inputs, including a novel task on Optical Braille Recognition. Our systematic evaluation of twelve MLLMs reveals that further advancements are necessary to overcome limitations related to cultural context, multilingual support, Braille reading comprehension, assistive object recognition, and hallucinations. This work provides critical insights into the future direction of multimodal AI for accessibility, underscoring the need for more inclusive, robust, and trustworthy visual assistance technologies.

Iwan Williams, Ninell Oldenburg, Ruchira Dhar et al.

Mechanistic interpretability (MI) aims to explain how neural networks work by uncovering their underlying causal mechanisms. As the field grows in influence, it is increasingly important to examine not just models themselves, but the assumptions, concepts and explanatory strategies implicit in MI research. We argue that mechanistic interpretability needs philosophy: not as an afterthought, but as an ongoing partner in clarifying its concepts, refining its methods, and assessing the epistemic and ethical stakes of interpreting AI systems. Taking three open problems from the MI literature as examples, this position paper illustrates the value philosophy can add to MI research, and outlines a path toward deeper interdisciplinary dialogue.

Ruchira Dhar, Anders Søgaard

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have prompted a growing body of work that questions the methodology of prevailing evaluation practices. However, many such critiques have already been extensively debated in natural language processing (NLP): a field with a long history of methodological reflection on evaluation. We conduct a scoping review of research on evaluation concerns in NLP and develop a taxonomy, synthesizing recurring positions and trade-offs within each area. We also discuss practical implications of the taxonomy, including a structured checklist to support more deliberate evaluation design and interpretation. By situating contemporary debates within their historical context, this work provides a consolidated reference for reasoning about evaluation practices.

Ninell Oldenburg, Ruchira Dhar, Anders Søgaard

In this paper, we argue that current AI research operates on a spectrum between two different underlying conceptions of intelligence: Intelligence Realism, which holds that intelligence represents a single, universal capacity measurable across all systems, and Intelligence Pluralism, which views intelligence as diverse, context-dependent capacities that cannot be reduced to a single universal measure. Through an analysis of current debates in AI research, we demonstrate how the conceptions remain largely implicit yet fundamentally shape how empirical evidence gets interpreted across a wide range of areas. These underlying views generate fundamentally different research approaches across three areas. Methodologically, they produce different approaches to model selection, benchmark design, and experimental validation. Interpretively, they lead to contradictory readings of the same empirical phenomena, from capability emergence to system limitations. Regarding AI risk, they generate categorically different assessments: realists view superintelligence as the primary risk and search for unified alignment solutions, while pluralists see diverse threats across different domains requiring context-specific solutions. We argue that making explicit these underlying assumptions can contribute to a clearer understanding of disagreements in AI research.

Ruchira Dhar, Stephanie Brandl, Ninell Oldenburg et al.

The field of Explainable AI (XAI) offers a wide range of techniques for making complex models interpretable. Yet, in practice, generating meaningful explanations is a context-dependent task that requires intentional design choices to ensure accessibility and transparency. This paper reframes explanation as a situated design process -- an approach particularly relevant for practitioners involved in building and deploying explainable systems. Drawing on prior research and principles from design thinking, we propose a three-part framework for explanation design in XAI: asking Who needs the explanation, What they need explained, and How that explanation should be delivered. We also emphasize the need for ethical considerations, including risks of epistemic inequality, reinforcing social inequities, and obscuring accountability and governance. By treating explanation as a sociotechnical design process, this framework encourages a context-aware approach to XAI that supports effective communication and the development of ethically responsible explanations.