Sean O’Brien

Dharunish Yugeswardeenoo, Kevin Zhu, Sean O'Brien

Although LLMs have the potential to transform many fields, they still underperform humans in reasoning tasks. Existing methods induce the model to produce step-by-step calculations, but this research explores the question: Does making the LLM analyze the question improve its performance? We propose a novel prompting strategy called Question Analysis Prompting (QAP), in which the model is prompted to explain the question in $n$ words before solving. The value of $n$ influences the length of response generated by the model. QAP is evaluated on GPT 3.5 Turbo and GPT 4 Turbo on arithmetic datasets GSM8K, AQuA, and SAT and commonsense dataset StrategyQA. QAP is compared with other state-of-the-art prompts including Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Plan and Solve Prompting (PS+) and Take A Deep Breath (TADB). QAP outperforms all state-of-the-art prompts on AQuA and SAT datasets on both GPT3.5 and GPT4. QAP consistently ranks among the top-2 prompts on 75\% of the tests. A key factor of QAP performance can be attributed to response length, where detailed responses are beneficial when answering harder questions, but can negatively affect easy questions.

Rajat Rawat, Hudson McBride, Dhiyaan Nirmal et al.

As large language models (LLMs) gain traction in healthcare, concerns about their susceptibility to demographic biases are growing. We introduce {DiversityMedQA}, a novel benchmark designed to assess LLM responses to medical queries across diverse patient demographics, such as gender and ethnicity. By perturbing questions from the MedQA dataset, which comprises medical board exam questions, we created a benchmark that captures the nuanced differences in medical diagnosis across varying patient profiles. Our findings reveal notable discrepancies in model performance when tested against these demographic variations. Furthermore, to ensure the perturbations were accurate, we also propose a filtering strategy that validates each perturbation. By releasing DiversityMedQA, we provide a resource for evaluating and mitigating demographic bias in LLM medical diagnoses.

Mrinal Agarwal, Saad Rana, Theo Sundoro et al.

Deception is a fundamental challenge for multi-agent reasoning: effective systems must strategically conceal information while detecting misleading behavior in others. Yet most evaluations reduce deception to static classification, ignoring the interactive, adversarial, and longitudinal nature of real deceptive dynamics. Large language models (LLMs) can deceive convincingly but remain weak at detecting deception in peers. We present WOLF, a multi-agent social deduction benchmark based on Werewolf that enables separable measurement of deception production and detection. WOLF embeds role-grounded agents (Villager, Werewolf, Seer, Doctor) in a programmable LangGraph state machine with strict night-day cycles, debate turns, and majority voting. Every statement is a distinct analysis unit, with self-assessed honesty from speakers and peer-rated deceptiveness from others. Deception is categorized via a standardized taxonomy (omission, distortion, fabrication, misdirection), while suspicion scores are longitudinally smoothed to capture both immediate judgments and evolving trust dynamics. Structured logs preserve prompts, outputs, and state transitions for full reproducibility. Across 7,320 statements and 100 runs, Werewolves produce deceptive statements in 31% of turns, while peer detection achieves 71-73% precision with ~52% overall accuracy. Precision is higher for identifying Werewolves, though false positives occur against Villagers. Suspicion toward Werewolves rises from ~52% to over 60% across rounds, while suspicion toward Villagers and the Doctor stabilizes near 44-46%. This divergence shows that extended interaction improves recall against liars without compounding errors against truthful roles. WOLF moves deception evaluation beyond static datasets, offering a dynamic, controlled testbed for measuring deceptive and detective capacity in adversarial multi-agent interaction.

Imran Mirza, Cole Huang, Ishwara Vasista et al.

Multi-agent systems, which consist of multiple AI models interacting within a shared environment, are increasingly used for persona-based interactions. However, if not carefully designed, these systems can reinforce implicit biases in large language models (LLMs), raising concerns about fairness and equitable representation. We present MALIBU, a novel benchmark developed to assess the degree to which LLM-based multi-agent systems implicitly reinforce social biases and stereotypes. MALIBU evaluates bias in LLM-based multi-agent systems through scenario-based assessments. AI models complete tasks within predefined contexts, and their responses undergo evaluation by an LLM-based multi-agent judging system in two phases. In the first phase, judges score responses labeled with specific demographic personas (e.g., gender, race, religion) across four metrics. In the second phase, judges compare paired responses assigned to different personas, scoring them and selecting the superior response. Our study quantifies biases in LLM-generated outputs, revealing that bias mitigation may favor marginalized personas over true neutrality, emphasizing the need for nuanced detection, balanced fairness strategies, and transparent evaluation benchmarks in multi-agent systems.

Ishant Chintapatla, Kazuma Choji, Naaisha Agarwal et al.

Recently, many benchmarks and datasets have been developed to evaluate Vision-Language Models (VLMs) using visual question answering (VQA) pairs, and models have shown significant accuracy improvements. However, these benchmarks rarely test the model's ability to accurately complete visual entailment, for instance, accepting or refuting a hypothesis based on the image. To address this, we propose COREVQA (Crowd Observations and Reasoning Entailment), a benchmark of 5608 image and synthetically generated true/false statement pairs, with images derived from the CrowdHuman dataset, to provoke visual entailment reasoning on challenging crowded images. Our results show that even the top-performing VLMs achieve accuracy below 80%, with other models performing substantially worse (39.98%-69.95%). This significant performance gap reveals key limitations in VLMs' ability to reason over certain types of image-question pairs in crowded scenes.

Stanley Yu, Vaidehi Bulusu, Oscar Yasunaga et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong conversational abilities but often generate falsehoods. Prior work suggests that the truthfulness of simple propositions can be represented as a single linear direction in a model's internal activations, but this may not fully capture its underlying geometry. In this work, we extend the concept cone framework, recently introduced for modeling refusal, to the domain of truth. We identify multi-dimensional cones that causally mediate truth-related behavior across multiple LLM families. Our results are supported by three lines of evidence: (i) causal interventions reliably flip model responses to factual statements, (ii) learned cones generalize across model architectures, and (iii) cone-based interventions preserve unrelated model behavior. These findings reveal the richer, multidirectional structure governing simple true/false propositions in LLMs and highlight concept cones as a promising tool for probing abstract behaviors.

Arjun Prasaath Anbazhagan, Parteek Kumar, Ujjwal Kaur et al.

How does textual representation of audio relate to the Large Language Model's (LLMs) learning about the audio world? This research investigates the extent to which LLMs can be prompted to generate audio, despite their primary training in textual data. We employ a three-tier approach, progressively increasing the complexity of audio generation: 1) Musical Notes, 2) Environmental Sounds, and 3) Human Speech. To bridge the gap between text and audio, we leverage code as an intermediary, prompting LLMs to generate code that, when executed, produces the desired audio output. To evaluate the quality and accuracy of the generated audio, we employ FAD and CLAP scores. Our findings reveal that while LLMs can generate basic audio features, their performance deteriorates as the complexity of the audio increases. This suggests that while LLMs possess a latent understanding of the auditory world, their ability to translate this understanding into tangible audio output remains rudimentary. Further research into techniques that can enhance the quality and diversity of LLM-generated audio can lead to an improvement in the performance of text-based LLMs in generating audio.

Daniel Son, Sanjana Rathore, Andrew Rufail et al.

We investigate feature universality in Gemma-2 language models (Gemma-2-2B and Gemma-2-9B), asking whether models with a four-fold difference in scale still converge on comparable internal concepts. Using the Sparse Autoencoder (SAE) dictionary-learning pipeline, we utilize SAEs on each model's residual-stream activations, align the resulting monosemantic features via activation correlation, and compare the matched feature spaces with SVCCA and RSA. Middle layers yield the strongest overlap, while early and late layers show far less similarity. Preliminary experiments extend the analysis from single tokens to multi-token subspaces, showing that semantically similar subspaces interact similarly with language models. These results strengthen the case that large language models carve the world into broadly similar, interpretable features despite size differences, reinforcing universality as a foundation for cross-model interpretability.

Lang Xiong, Raina Gao, Alyssa Jeong et al.

Sarcasm is a form of humor where expressions convey meanings opposite to their literal interpretations. Classifying and generating sarcasm using large language models is vital for interpreting human communication. Sarcasm poses challenges for computational models, due to its nuanced nature. We introduce Sarc7, a benchmark that classifies 7 types of sarcasm: self-deprecating, brooding, deadpan, polite, obnoxious, raging, and manic by annotating entries of the MUStARD dataset. Classification was evaluated using zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought (CoT), and a novel emotion-based prompting technique. We propose an emotion-based generation method developed by identifying key components of sarcasm-incongruity, shock value, and context dependency. Our classification experiments show that Gemini 2.5, using emotion-based prompting, outperforms other setups with an F1 score of 0.3664. Human evaluators preferred our emotion-based prompting, with 38.46% more successful generations than zero-shot prompting.