As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly encourage users to disclose personal profiles for tailored assistance, measuring their political alignment becomes increasingly important. However, many existing benchmarks for assessing political behavior rely on closed-ended questions and do not fully capture how a model's stance may adapt to user-provided context during interaction. We introduce a framework that disentangles two distinct triggers of political sycophancy: opinion (aligning with explicit narratives) and identity (stereotyping based on demographic labels). Using 450 manually-checked political dilemmas as controlled probes, we evaluate 13 instruction-tuned LLMs. We uncover a dissociation: a model's susceptibility to explicit opinions does not necessarily predict its susceptibility to identity cues, and vice versa. When both signals are present, their effects are generally sub-additive rather than simply additive. Additionally, system-level personas primarily shift a model's baseline stance while having limited effect on the stance shift caused by user opinion or identity. Ultimately, our results suggest that LLM political stance is interactively and steerably vulnerable rather than being a fixed trait, highlighting how personalization may amplify identity- or opinion-conditioned shifts in the model's behaviors.
Li-Ni Fu, C. Meng, Chien-Hua Chen et al.· 0 citations
We propose a neurobiologically plausible model of cognition that combines the advantages of connectionist and symbolic systems, and that can explain a wide range of cognitive phenomena. This model, called Rate-Coding Bundle Memory (RCBM), is based on the Symbolic Subsystem Hypothesis, which posits that the brain implements a symbolic subsystem within its fundamentally connectionist nature. RCBM is a hybrid model that uses rate coding to represent symbols in a continuous space, and it uses a bundle memory system to store and retrieve these symbols. The model is capable of solving a wide range of cognitive phenomena, including one-shot learning, pattern separation, and the binding problem. We argue that RCBM provides a promising framework for understanding the nature of cognition, and that it can be used to develop more sophisticated models of cognition in the future.
Teun van Gils, Rowan P. Sommers, Markus Ostarek et al.· 0 citations
Emotion recognition in conversations is increasingly tackled with language models, but these models can be unstable and expensive to fine-tune or to prompt with long dialogue histories. We propose EmoLASP, a framework that combines a language model with declarative reasoning via Answer Set Programming (ASP) to predict VAD scores (Valence-Arousal-Dominance) in conversations. Experiments on a widely used benchmark dataset (IEMOCAP) across six open-source LLMs (3B-120B) and two PLMs (BERT, RoBERTa) show that EmoLASP improves prediction performance compared to using the language model alone, even when the LLMs/PLMs are given no dialogue history in their prompts or input vectors. The gains are largest for prompt-only LLMs, which EmoLASP uses without any fine-tuning. However, for fine-tuned PLMs, the reasoner adds little once dialogue history is available. EmoLASP's LLM pipeline demonstrates the potential advantages of using a reasoning approach to ensure emotion prediction consistency and to reduce both the cost of fine-tuning and the cost of prompting with long dialogue histories.
Automating alignment research may accelerate progress toward aligned AI, but whether it does is hard to measure. Luckily, many alignment failures, such as deception, sycophancy, and jailbreaks, are already measurable by public benchmarks. We study whether automated alignment researchers (AARs) can post-train to mitigate alignment failures by proposing training methods and data to simultaneously optimize multiple safety benchmarks, while preserving general capability. Across 10 alignment failures, the strongest AAR methods significantly reduce the targeted alignment failures and generalize to a held-out benchmark, multi-turn behavioral audits, and models up to 4.7 times larger than the target model. As a human baseline, 28 experienced researchers receive up to eight hours to develop methods for the same benchmarks, but their methods underperform the best AAR methods. Using human ideas as the AARs' initial research direction does not improve performance, suggesting current AARs may not need guidance from experienced researchers. These results suggest that automating alignment research on well-characterized failures may be practical in the near term.
Chen Yueh-Han, Jiaxin Wen, Jan Hendrik Kirchner· 0 citations
Reach audiences
Advertise in front of researchers, engineers, and readers.
Pharmaceutical sponsors developing a drug for both the United States and the European Union must reconcile guidance issued independently by the FDA and the EMA. Where the two agencies require substantively the same thing, a sponsor can file once; where they diverge, a single trial design risks rejection in one region; where one agency is silent on a point the other regulates, the sponsor must infer obligations. Today this reconciliation is performed manually by regulatory-affairs experts. We introduce cross-jurisdiction regulatory divergence detection: given an FDA requirement and an EMA requirement on the same topic, classify their relationship as AGREE, DIVERGE, or SILENT. SILENT is inherently directional (SILENT_FDA vs. SILENT_EMA); we record direction per pair and report per-direction F1 alongside the collapsed label. We release RegDivergence-101, a 101-pair expert-grounded pilot evaluation benchmark (labels grounded in three peer-reviewed FDA/EMA comparison studies and primary FDA/EMA/ICH guidance text; dual-annotation inter-annotator kappa = 0.85), and systematically characterise a four-method baseline hierarchy: lexical heuristic (0.511 macro-F1, 95% CI [0.411-0.605]), NLI cross-encoder (0.233), obligation-level Graph-RAG (0.663 [0.570-0.747]), and flat LLM judge / Claude Haiku (0.830 [0.747-0.908]). Three directional observations emerge at pilot scale (n = 101): SILENT is semantically detectable but invisible to entailment-only formulations; pair-level obligation graphs improve over lexical methods but trail flat-LLM context (CIs partially overlapping); and corpus-level graph construction is the indicated architectural target for large-scale silent-detection. RegDivergence-101 is a pilot release establishing the task formulation and baseline hierarchy; four unrepresented regulatory domains and an expansion roadmap are described in Section 7.
Chuchu Wu, Zhiyin Zhou, Jingzhuo Hu et al.· 0 citations
Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes under the reassurance that a clinician signs every note. We audited three commercial AI scribes on the same 142 consultations: 565 notes from recorded UK primary-care and US ambulatory encounters plus authored scenarios. Twelve discovery passes proposed 13,678 candidate errors; the 5,898 clearing an importance filter went to an adversarial panel of two models from different families, each told to refute what it could, and 618 survived. One note in three (31.3% [27.0, 35.6]) carries a verified failure, concentrated in allergy and medication information, invented patient identity, and history written up as examination on telephone consultations that can contain none. No product was given a patient record; setting aside the two classes a record would have prefilled, invented identity and dates, the rate is 24.8% [20.8, 29.0]. One failure mode did not fit our scheme, drawn from published scribe-error taxonomies: a treatment the clinician retracts, recorded as delivered care. Two clinicians adjudicated blind, disjoint samples: a physician author upheld 20 of 21 findings (95.2% [77.3, 99.2]) and an independent clinician, not an author, 12 of 12 ([75.8, 100]); both judged every sampled refusal genuine. A failure rate depends on the instrument as much as the scribes. With model, evidence and settings fixed, the review instruction alone moves the share of candidates verified from 9.3% to 79.0%, and the reviewing family moves it too: alone at that instruction the gentler flags 54.8% of notes against 27.8%. Between 28% and 97% of sampled notes carry a failure depending on the standard. Published audits disagree among themselves by a margin instrument differences alone can produce: omission is 54-86% of their errors against our 23.1%. We release all 618 findings with transcript-side evidence, every prompt and model version, and the re-runnable pipeline.
Sebastian Fox, Luke Markham, Ryan Lail et al.· 0 citations
Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the note fails to record. The standard check is an LLM judge: a second model reads the note against the transcript and flags problems. We ask whether judges detect omissions. Public corpora cannot supply the answer key: their clinician reference notes and transcripts are materially discrepant. Our benchmark has 500 single-error note pairs from audited fact sheets, 298 with a named fact certainly absent and 202 added-or-altered controls. Across eight judge designs, paired discrimination (the flawed note below its clean twin, 0.5 a coin flip) reads 0.79-0.94 on added or altered content and 0.50-0.63 on omissions. On single notes, no design flags omissions reliably more often than perfect notes. Wording changes, voting and GEPA prompt optimisation move the operating point without creating usable detection. Restructuring the task recovers it: list the facts the transcript establishes, then check the note for each. Two methods reach it independently and trade off: a per-fact pipeline, and a GEPA-evolved prompt doing the same in one call. The pipeline's flags name the missing fact and its severity at 2.7% false alarms. The single call detects more (36.9% against 24.6%, p=0.002) at 6.2% false alarms and a tenth of the cost per note. A physician author validated 70 items and, where the two routes disagree, sided with the pipeline on 10 of 10 (p=0.002). A second clinician, not an author, graded the severity rubric blind and agrees to within a grade. On real vendor notes from a companion census no benchmark threshold transfers, but the re-calibrated single call detects more than the best of the eight at half its false-alarm rate. Omissions whose fact is restated elsewhere defeat both routes. We release the benchmark, prompts and judgements.
Sebastian Fox, Luke Markham, Ryan Lail et al.· 0 citations
We study self-modeling: an LLM's ability to answer questions about its own behavior. We focus on verifiable behavioral questions, such as whether a prompt edit would change the model's final answer. To measure this capability, we introduce a benchmark that tests diverse types of self-modeling questions. Current models show non-trivial but limited self-modeling skill, and make systematic mistakes on simple counterfactual questions about their own behavior. To improve self-modeling skill, we develop a scalable synthetic-data pipeline that produces self-modeling training data, and show that reinforcement-learning can improve aggregate self-modeling skill across three open-source model families with some transfer to held-out tasks. These gains, however, do not seem to constitute introspection consistently: improved self-modeling may not arise from privileged access to the model's internal decision process.
Siqi Zeng, Andre N. Assis, Rowan Wang· 0 citations
We present CogEvol, a family of models trained specifically for Learning Environment Generation: turning a course brief into a finished learning artifact (structured-JSON slides or self-contained interactive HTML pages) in a single pass. Across 220k production requests, CogEvol completes a slide in a median of 17 seconds and an interactive page in 59, replacing minutes-long multi-turn agent scaffolding. Reliability is enforced rather than hoped for: a production-grounded data pipeline turns real failures into 53,687 verified SFT samples, and a hybrid rule-plus-VLM reward drives GRPO-based RL, hardened after we caught and fixed a reward-hacking episode that produced visually convincing but unplayable games. CogEvol-27B scores 83.7 on slide quality and 63.7 on a 500-case interactive-HTML benchmark with 26.9x fewer parameters than flagship coding models, and, in collaboration with the OpenMAIC team, serves their live production traffic. CogEvol-4B is released openly under the Apache 2.0 license at https://github.com/CogEvol/CogEvol-4B; external flagships are measured on the same suites under the identical harness. Scaffold editing cuts interactive-page generation cost by a further ~76%, and the full stack runs on domestic Ascend accelerators at application-level parity with A800 GPUs, lowering the unit cost of AI-native education at scale.
Shangqing Tu, Daniel Zhang-Li, Yucheng Wang et al.· 0 citations
While gender and racial biases in language models have been widely studied, anti-LGBTQ biases remain underexplored, particularly beyond English. Existing benchmarks often do not capture cultural and linguistic variation and rely on gender representations. This paper introduces a multilingual German-English benchmark dataset for the evaluation of anti-LGBTQ biases in language models. It combines community-sourced stereotypes from German-speaking queer individuals with a German translation of WinoQueer. The data is used to evaluate eight language models across sizes and architectures and explore mitigation through fine-tuning on community and progressive media content. Results show that language models reproduce anti-queer stereotypes, with variation across identities and models. Differences between the translated and community-based data highlight the importance of cultural adaptation for multilingual bias evaluation. Fine-tuning reduces bias on average, but not consistently across models and identities. Warning: This text contains examples of anti-queer hateful language and stereotypes.
LLMs are increasingly used for interpersonal advice and as tools for studying social behavior across languages and cultures. A common shortcut for eliciting language- or culture-related variation is to ask a model to answer as a native speaker. We test whether this native-speaker persona reproduces the outputs obtained when models instead generate advice in the target language and translate the response back into English. Using 600 interpersonal advice questions across 13 languages and eight LLMs, we compare native-language generation followed by translation (NL) with native-speaker persona prompting (NP), measuring linguistic style, behavioral scaffolding, and forced-choice action recommendations. We find that NP and NL are not interchangeable. Compared to NL, NP often increases lexical social cues, including affiliation and positive tone, while reducing qualities such as concreteness and social attunement; NP also provides less actionable scaffolding in open-ended advice. In forced-choice scenarios, NP changes which action the model selects, favoring confrontation over redirection, with effect sizes varying across languages, topics, and models. Our results show that cross-lingual elicitation strategy is a consequential methodological choice that can change both how advice is framed and which actions models recommend.
Assessing claim check-worthiness is an essential first step in automated fact-checking pipelines. This work is motivated by a real deployment challenge at an early-stage startup: running large language models (LLMs) over every incoming claim is cost- and latency-prohibitive, yet smaller models sacrifice accuracy. We propose NN-PPI, a pointwise extension of Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) that calibrates model predictions at inference time as a lightweight post-hoc layer, without re-training the underlying model. NN-PPI achieves weighted F1 gains ranging from 12% to 33.80% depending on the size and performance of the baseline model, bringing SLMs on par with larger LLMs. Beyond few-shot SLMs, NN-PPI further improves a production-deployed fine-tuned model, demonstrating that residual calibration is complementary to supervised fine-tuning. By recovering LLM-level accuracy from models that are an order of magnitude cheaper to serve, it makes accurate check-worthiness detection substantially cheaper to operate at scale. Our code and data can be found at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/arr-claim-worthiness-F237.
