Alireza Amiri-Margavi

Hamidreza Hasani Balyani, Seyed Pouyan Mousavi Davoudi, Alireza Amiri-Margavi et al.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as advisors whose objective is not aligned with the user's: recommenders optimize for engagement, sales assistants for purchases, negotiation agents for concessions. Whether such advisors stay truthful when honesty conflicts with their own payoff is a core alignment-evaluation question. We turn the canonical Crawford-Sobel cheap-talk model into a pre-specified benchmark for LLM honesty under preference misalignment. Cheap-talk theory predicts neither full revelation nor silence but coarse monotone partitions, with fewer informative intervals as preference conflict grows. A sender observes a state omega in [0,1], wants the receiver's action near omega+b, and sends one costless message to a receiver whose ideal action is omega. The design uses 5 bias levels, 3 prompt frames, a fixed low-temperature setting, and 200 states per cell: 12,000 sender calls. For the positive-bias grid b in {0.01,0.04,0.08,0.12} the exact most-informative partition sizes are 7,4,3,2, with oracle normalized mutual information 0.5294, 0.3268, 0.2205, 0.1829. Running the full design on four instruction-tuned models (GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, Llama-3.3-70B), we find all four over-reveal relative to the most-informative equilibrium by 1.8 to 4.2x: normalized mutual information stays at 0.78-0.94 where the oracle prescribes 0.18-0.53. Informativeness declines with bias as predicted but never approaches the strategic optimum; rather than coarse partitions, models show near-full revelation with a constant upward offset tracking their bias (linear exaggeration). Payoff-maximizing versus honesty framing has negligible effect. A decoder ablation shows the finding is recoverable only when the receiver reads the sender's stated number: an embedding-only decoder mis-reads the same data as near-babbling.

Alireza Amiri-Margavi, Arshia Gharagozlou, Amin Gholami Davodi et al.

Prior work on fairness in large language models (LLMs) has primarily focused on access-level behaviors such as refusals and safety filtering. However, equitable access does not ensure equitable interaction quality once a response is provided. In this paper, we conduct a controlled fairness audit examining how LLMs differ in tone, uncertainty, and linguistic framing across demographic identities after access is granted. Using a counterfactual prompt design, we evaluate GPT-4 and LLaMA-3.1-70B on career advice tasks while varying identity attributes along age, gender, and nationality. We assess access fairness through refusal analysis and measure interaction quality using automated linguistic metrics, including sentiment, politeness, and hedging. Identity-conditioned differences are evaluated using paired statistical tests. Both models exhibit zero refusal rates across all identities, indicating uniform access. Nevertheless, we observe systematic, model-specific disparities in interaction quality: GPT-4 expresses significantly higher hedging toward younger male users, while LLaMA exhibits broader sentiment variation across identity groups. These results show that fairness disparities can persist at the interaction level even when access is equal, motivating evaluation beyond refusal-based audits.

Seyed Pouyan Mousavi Davoudi, Amin Gholami Davodi, Alireza Amiri-Margavi et al.

We introduce a new approach in which several advanced large language models-specifically GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLAMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash-collaborate to both produce and answer intricate, doctoral-level probability problems without relying on any single "correct" reference. Rather than depending on an established ground truth, our investigation focuses on how agreement among diverse models can signal the reliability of their outputs and, by extension, reflect the overall quality of the generated questions. To measure this inter-model alignment, we apply a suite of statistical evaluations, including chi-square tests, Fleiss' Kappa coefficients, and confidence interval calculations, thereby capturing both precision in answers and clarity in question phrasing. Our analysis reveals that Claude and Gemini tend to frame questions more coherently and unambiguously, which is evidenced by their tighter confidence intervals and greater concordance with responding agents. In contrast, LLAMA exhibits wider confidence bands and a lower level of agreement, indicating more variability and reduced consistency in its question formulations. These observations support the notion that a multi-model collaborative strategy not only improves answer dependability but also offers an effective, data-driven mechanism for evaluating and refining question quality when no definitive solution exists. Ultimately, this work delivers actionable insights into enhancing AI-guided reasoning processes through coordinated interactions among heterogeneous language models.

Alireza Amiri-Margavi, Iman Jebellat, Ehsan Jebellat et al.

We propose a collaborative framework in which multiple large language models -- including GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLaMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash -- generate and answer complex, PhD-level statistical questions when definitive ground truth is unavailable. Our study examines how inter-model consensus improves both response reliability and identifies the quality of the generated questions. Employing chi-square tests, Fleiss' Kappa, and confidence interval analysis, we quantify consensus rates and inter-rater agreement to assess both response precision and question quality. Key results indicate that Claude and GPT-4 produce well-structured, less ambiguous questions with a higher inter-rater agreement, as shown by narrower confidence intervals and greater alignment with question-generating models. In contrast, Gemini and LLaMA exhibit greater variability and lower reliability in question formulation. These findings demonstrate that collaborative interactions among large language models enhance response reliability and provide valuable insights for optimizing AI-driven collaborative reasoning systems.