Arpandeep Khatua

Arpandeep Khatua, Vikram Sharma Mailthody, Bhagyashree Taleka et al.

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have shown high potential for a variety of real-world, challenging applications, but one of the major obstacles in GNN research is the lack of large-scale flexible datasets. Most existing public datasets for GNNs are relatively small, which limits the ability of GNNs to generalize to unseen data. The few existing large-scale graph datasets provide very limited labeled data. This makes it difficult to determine if the GNN model's low accuracy for unseen data is inherently due to insufficient training data or if the model failed to generalize. Additionally, datasets used to train GNNs need to offer flexibility to enable a thorough study of the impact of various factors while training GNN models. In this work, we introduce the Illinois Graph Benchmark (IGB), a research dataset tool that the developers can use to train, scrutinize and systematically evaluate GNN models with high fidelity. IGB includes both homogeneous and heterogeneous academic graphs of enormous sizes, with more than 40% of their nodes labeled. Compared to the largest graph datasets publicly available, the IGB provides over 162X more labeled data for deep learning practitioners and developers to create and evaluate models with higher accuracy. The IGB dataset is a collection of academic graphs designed to be flexible, enabling the study of various GNN architectures, embedding generation techniques, and analyzing system performance issues for node classification tasks. IGB is open-sourced, supports DGL and PyG frameworks, and comes with releases of the raw text that we believe foster emerging language models and GNN research projects. An early public version of IGB is available at https://github.com/IllinoisGraphBenchmark/IGB-Datasets.

Fangrui Huang, Souhad Chbeir, Arpandeep Khatua et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for mental-health support; yet prevailing evaluation methods--fluency metrics, preference tests, and generic dialogue benchmarks--fail to capture the clinically critical dimensions of psychotherapy. We introduce THERAPYGYM, a framework that evaluates and improves therapy chatbots along two clinical pillars: fidelity and safety. Fidelity is measured using the Cognitive Therapy Rating Scale (CTRS), implemented as an automated pipeline that scores adherence to CBT techniques over multi-turn sessions. Safety is assessed using a multi-label annotation scheme, covering therapy-specific risks (e.g., failing to address harm or abuse). To mitigate bias and unreliability in LLM-based judges, we further release THERAPYJUDGEBENCH, a validation set of 116 dialogues with 1,270 expert ratings for auditing and calibration against licensed clinicians. THERAPYGYM also serves as a training harness: CTRS and safety-based rewards drive RL with configurable patient simulations spanning diverse symptom profiles. Models trained in THERAPYGYM improve on expert ratings, with average CTRS rising from 0.10 to 0.60 (and 0.16 to 0.59 under LLM judges). Our work enables scalable development of therapy chatbots that are faithful to evidence-based practice and safer in high-stakes use.

Zane Durante, Silky Singh, Arpandeep Khatua et al.

Training video-language models is often prohibitively expensive due to the high cost of processing long frame sequences and the limited availability of annotated long videos. We present VideoWeave, a simple yet effective approach to improve data efficiency by constructing synthetic long-context training samples that splice together short, captioned videos from existing datasets. Rather than modifying model architectures or optimization objectives, VideoWeave reorganizes available video-text pairs to expand temporal diversity within fixed compute. We systematically study how different data composition strategies like random versus visually clustered splicing and caption enrichment affect downstream performance on downstream video question answering. Under identical compute constraints, models trained with VideoWeave achieve higher accuracy than conventional video finetuning. Our results highlight that reorganizing training data, rather than altering architectures, may offer a simple and scalable path for training video-language models. We link our code for all experiments here.

Noriyuki Kugo, Xiang Li, Zixin Li et al.

Video Question Answering (VQA) inherently relies on multimodal reasoning, integrating visual, temporal, and linguistic cues to achieve a deeper understanding of video content. However, many existing methods rely on feeding frame-level captions into a single model, making it difficult to adequately capture temporal and interactive contexts. To address this limitation, we introduce VideoMultiAgents, a framework that integrates specialized agents for vision, scene graph analysis, and text processing. It enhances video understanding leveraging complementary multimodal reasoning from independently operating agents. Our approach is also supplemented with a question-guided caption generation, which produces captions that highlight objects, actions, and temporal transitions directly relevant to a given query, thus improving the answer accuracy. Experimental results demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on Intent-QA (79.0%, +6.2% over previous SOTA), EgoSchema subset (75.4%, +3.4%), and NExT-QA (79.6%, +0.4%). The source code is available at https://github.com/PanasonicConnect/VideoMultiAgents.

Arpandeep Khatua, Hao Zhu, Peter Tran et al.

Resolving team conflicts requires not only task-specific competence, but also social intelligence to find common ground and build consensus. As AI agents increasingly collaborate on complex work, they must develop coordination capabilities to function as effective teammates. Yet we hypothesize that current agents lack these capabilities. To test this, we introduce CooperBench, a benchmark of over 600 collaborative coding tasks across 12 libraries in 4 programming languages. Each task assigns two agents different features that can be implemented independently but may conflict without proper coordination. Tasks are grounded in real open-source repositories with expert-written tests. Evaluating state-of-the-art coding agents, we observe the curse of coordination: agents achieve on average 30% lower success rates when working together compared to performing both tasks individually. This contrasts sharply with human teams, where adding teammates typically improves productivity. Our analysis reveals three key issues: (1) communication channels become jammed with vague, ill-timed, and inaccurate messages; (2) even with effective communication, agents deviate from their commitments; and (3) agents often hold incorrect expectations about others' plans and communication. Through large-scale simulation, we also observe rare but interesting emergent coordination behavior including role division, resource division, and negotiation. Our research presents a novel benchmark for collaborative coding and calls for a shift from pursuing individual agent capability to developing social intelligence.

Caleb Ziems, Dora Zhao, Rose E. Wang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping the private and professional lives of users, with numerous applications in business, education, finance, healthcare, law, and science. With this rise in global influence comes greater urgency to build, evaluate, and deploy these systems in a manner that prioritizes not only technical capabilities but also human priorities. This work presents a framework for developing Human-Centered Large Language Models (HCLLMs), which integrates perspectives from Natural Language Processing (NLP), Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), and responsible AI. Considering the ethics, economics, and technical objectives of language modeling, we argue that model developers need to address human concerns, preferences, values, and goals, not only during a cursory post-training stage, but rather with rigor and care at every stage of the pipeline. This paper offers human-centered insights and recommendations for developers at each stage, from system design to data sourcing, model training, evaluation, and responsible deployment. Then we conclude with a case study, applying these insights to understand the future of work with HCLLMs.

Sina J. Semnani, Jirayu Burapacheep, Arpandeep Khatua et al. · stanford

Wikipedia is the largest open knowledge corpus, widely used worldwide and serving as a key resource for training large language models (LLMs) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. Ensuring its accuracy is therefore critical. But how accurate is Wikipedia, and how can we improve it? We focus on inconsistencies, a specific type of factual inaccuracy, and introduce the task of corpus-level inconsistency detection. We present CLAIRE, an agentic system that combines LLM reasoning with retrieval to surface potentially inconsistent claims along with contextual evidence for human review. In a user study with experienced Wikipedia editors, 87.5% reported higher confidence when using CLAIRE, and participants identified 64.7% more inconsistencies in the same amount of time. Combining CLAIRE with human annotation, we contribute WIKICOLLIDE, the first benchmark of real Wikipedia inconsistencies. Using random sampling with CLAIRE-assisted analysis, we find that at least 3.3% of English Wikipedia facts contradict another fact, with inconsistencies propagating into 7.3% of FEVEROUS and 4.0% of AmbigQA examples. Benchmarking strong baselines on this dataset reveals substantial headroom: the best fully automated system achieves an AUROC of only 75.1%. Our results show that contradictions are a measurable component of Wikipedia and that LLM-based systems like CLAIRE can provide a practical tool to help editors improve knowledge consistency at scale.