Fatemeh Bahrani

Ala N. Tak, Amin Banayeeanzade, Anahita Bolourani et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly positioned as decision engines for hiring, healthcare, and economic judgment, yet real-world human judgment reflects a balance between rational deliberation and emotion-driven bias. If LLMs are to participate in high-stakes decisions or serve as models of human behavior, it is critical to assess whether they exhibit analogous patterns of (ir)rationalities and biases. To this end, we evaluate multiple LLM families on (i) benchmarks testing core axioms of rational choice and (ii) classic decision domains from behavioral economics and social norms where emotions are known to shape judgment and choice. Across settings, we show that deliberate "thinking" reliably improves rationality and pushes models toward expected-value maximization. To probe human-like affective distortions and their interaction with reasoning, we use two emotion-steering methods: in-context priming (ICP) and representation-level steering (RLS). ICP induces strong directional shifts that are often extreme and difficult to calibrate, whereas RLS produces more psychologically plausible patterns but with lower reliability. Our results suggest that the same mechanisms that improve rationality also amplify sensitivity to affective interventions, and that different steering methods trade off controllability against human-aligned behavior. Overall, this points to a tension between reasoning and affective steering, with implications for both human simulation and the safe deployment of LLM-based decision systems.

Amin Banayeeanzade, Qingchuan Yang, Dhruv Tarsadiya et al.

Diversity is essential for language-model applications ranging from creative generation to scientific discovery, yet modern LLMs often collapse into a narrow subset of plausible outputs. While prior work has developed benchmarks for measuring this lack of diversity, less is known about how the step-by-step probability distributions at inference time cause the problem. We introduce a validity--diversity framework that attributes diversity collapse to how an LLM allocates probability mass across valid and invalid continuations during decoding. This framework decomposes the bottleneck into two complementary forms of miscalibration. First, order calibration: valid tokens are not reliably ranked above invalid tokens, so rank-based cutoff rules must trade off between recovering valid continuations and admitting invalid ones. Second, shape calibration: probability mass is overly concentrated only on few valid continuations while having a heavy-tail of mixed valid and invalid tokens, so maintaining high validity limits diversity. We formalize both mechanisms and show that local failures compound across decoding steps, producing strong sequence-level losses in diversity. Empirically, we develop controlled diagnostics for probing these bottlenecks, including tasks with exactly known valid sets and oracle cutoff baselines. Across 14 language models spanning multiple families and scales, we find that diversity collapse is not merely a limitation of particular sampling heuristics, but a consequence of order and shape miscalibration in the LLM distribution.

Amin Banayeeanzade, Fatemeh Bahrani, Yutai Zhou et al.

Imitation Learning (IL) is a widely adopted approach which enables agents to learn from human expert demonstrations by framing the task as a supervised learning problem. However, IL often suffers from causal confusion, where agents misinterpret spurious correlations as causal relationships, leading to poor performance in testing environments with distribution shift. To address this issue, we introduce GAze-Based Regularization in Imitation Learning (GABRIL), a novel method that leverages the human gaze data gathered during the data collection phase to guide the representation learning in IL. GABRIL utilizes a regularization loss which encourages the model to focus on causally relevant features identified through expert gaze and consequently mitigates the effects of confounding variables. We validate our approach in Atari environments and the Bench2Drive benchmark in CARLA by collecting human gaze datasets and applying our method in both domains. Experimental results show that the improvement of GABRIL over behavior cloning is around 179% more than the same number for other baselines in the Atari and 76% in the CARLA setup. Finally, we show that our method provides extra explainability when compared to regular IL agents.

Litian Gong, Fatemeh Bahrani, Yutai Zhou et al.

AutoFocus-IL is a simple yet effective method to improve data efficiency and generalization in visual imitation learning by guiding policies to attend to task-relevant features rather than distractors and spurious correlations. Although saliency regularization has emerged as a promising way to achieve this, existing approaches typically require costly supervision such as human gaze data or manual saliency annotations. In contrast, AutoFocus-IL leverages vision-language models (VLMs) to automatically identify and track key objects in demonstrations, generating temporal saliency maps that highlight causal visual signals while suppressing distractors. These maps are then used to regularize behavior cloning policies, yielding stronger alignment between visual attention and task-relevant cues. Experiments in both the CARLA simulator and real-robot manipulation tasks demonstrate that AutoFocus-IL not only outperforms standard behavior cloning but also surpasses state-of-the-art baselines that assume privileged access to human supervision, such as gaze data. Code, datasets, and trained policy videos are available at https://AutoFocus-IL.github.io/.

Amin Banayeeanzade, Ala N. Tak, Fatemeh Bahrani et al.

The ability to control LLMs' emulated emotional states and personality traits is essential for enabling rich, human-centered interactions in socially interactive settings. We introduce PsySET, a Psychologically-informed benchmark to evaluate LLM Steering Effectiveness and Trustworthiness across the emotion and personality domains. Our study spans four models from different LLM families paired with various steering strategies, including prompting, fine-tuning, and representation engineering. Our results indicate that prompting is consistently effective but limited in intensity control, whereas vector injections achieve finer controllability while slightly reducing output quality. Moreover, we explore the trustworthiness of steered LLMs by assessing safety, truthfulness, fairness, and ethics, highlighting potential side effects and behavioral shifts. Notably, we observe idiosyncratic effects; for instance, even a positive emotion like joy can degrade robustness to adversarial factuality, lower privacy awareness, and increase preferential bias. Meanwhile, anger predictably elevates toxicity yet strengthens leakage resistance. Our framework establishes the first holistic evaluation of emotion and personality steering, offering insights into its interpretability and reliability for socially interactive applications.