Aafiya Hussain

Puqi Zhou, Ali Asgarov, Aafiya Hussain et al.

Videos from fleets of ground robots can advance public safety by providing scalable situational awareness and reducing professionals' burden. Yet little is known about how to design and integrate multi-robot videos into public safety workflows. Collaborating with six police agencies, we examined how such videos could be made practical. In Study 1, we presented the first testbed for multi-robot ground video sensemaking. The testbed includes 38 events-of-interest (EoI) relevant to public safety, a dataset of 20 robot patrol videos (10 day/night pairs) covering EoI types, and 6 design requirements aimed at improving current video sensemaking practices. In Study 2, we built MRVS, a tool that augments multi-robot patrol video streams with a prompt-engineered video understanding model. Participants reported reduced manual workload and greater confidence with LLM-based explanations, while noting concerns about false alarms and privacy. We conclude with implications for designing future multi-robot video sensemaking tools.

Gaurav Srivastava, Aafiya Hussain, Zhenyu Bi et al.

Evaluating language models fairly is becoming harder as static benchmarks available on the internet risk contamination by training data. This makes it unclear whether models are truly reasoning or just recalling answers. In this paper, we introduce BeyondBench, an evaluation framework that avoids this problem by using algorithmic problem generation. Unlike traditional benchmarks that risk contamination from internet-scale training data, BeyondBench creates mathematically grounded problems on the fly, ensuring each test remains fresh and uncontaminated. Our framework covers 44 algorithmic tasks with a total of 117 variations, grouped into three difficulty levels: the Easy Suite (29 tasks) for basic arithmetic and statistics, the Medium Suite (5 tasks, 49 variations) for sequence patterns and reasoning, and the Hard Suite (10 tasks, 68 variations) tackling NP-complete and constraint satisfaction problems. Each task generates problems from a combinatorial space larger than 10^15 unique instances, with solutions verified deterministically by mathematical proofs. We evaluated 101 language models, including 85 open-source and 16 closed-source models, spanning sizes from 0.5B to 141B parameters and multiple quantization schemes. Our results show consistent reasoning deficiencies across model families, with performance degrading sharply as problem complexity increases from polynomial to exponential. In our Hard Suite evaluations, models such as Gemini-2.5-pro, Llama-3.3-70B, and Qwen2.5-72B achieved average accuracies of 56.38%, 26.91%, and 33.60%, respectively. Moreover, we observe that performance drops drastically without tool usage, with GPT-5, GPT-5-mini, and GPT-5-nano showing a decline of 16.81%, 28.05%, and 47.59% accuracy on the hard suite. Our leaderboard is publicly available at https://ctrl-gaurav.github.io/BeyondBench/

Talha Chafekar, Aafiya Hussain, Grishma Sharma et al.

There has been a lot of work in question generation where different methods to provide target answers as input, have been employed. This experimentation has been mostly carried out for RNN based models. We use three different methods and their combinations for incorporating answer information and explore their effect on several automatic evaluation metrics. The methods that are used are answer prompting, using a custom product method using answer embeddings and encoder outputs, choosing sentences from the input paragraph that have answer related information, and using a separate cross-attention attention block in the decoder which attends to the answer. We observe that answer prompting without any additional modes obtains the best scores across rouge, meteor scores. Additionally, we use a custom metric to calculate how many of the generated questions have the same answer, as the answer which is used to generate them.

Gaurav Srivastava, Aafiya Hussain, Sriram Srinivasan et al.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance on complex mathematical benchmarks yet sometimes fail on basic math reasoning while generating unnecessarily verbose responses. In this paper, we present a systematic benchmark and comprehensive empirical study to evaluate the efficiency of reasoning in LLMs, focusing on the fundamental tradeoff between accuracy and overthinking. First, we formalize the accuracy-verbosity tradeoff. Second, we introduce the Overthinking Score, a harmonic-mean metric combining accuracy and token-efficiency for holistic model evaluation. Third, we establish an evaluation protocol with dynamically-generated data across 14 basic math tasks. Fourth, we conduct a large-scale empirical study evaluating 53 LLMs, including reasoning and quantized variants across different reasoning budgets. Our findings reveal: 1) model performance on complex benchmarks does not translate directly to basic math reasoning; 2) reasoning models generate ~18 more tokens while sometimes achieving lower accuracy and exhibit catastrophic collapse when token is constrained, dropping by ~28; 3) the accuracy-verbosity relationship is non-monotonic with extended reasoning budgets yielding diminishing returns (GPT-5/o-series models show zero accuracy gain from low -> medium -> high reasoning effort). Our findings challenge the assumption that longer reasoning in LLMs necessarily improves mathematical reasoning.