We benchmark three supervised fine-tuned models against frontier zero-shot baselines on a 661-row held-out slice of PiSAR (Persona, intent, Screen, Action, Rationale), a 12,929-tuple corpus of screen-anchored behavioural rationales curated from public app-store reviews, Pew American Trends Panel demographics, and the OPeRA shopper traces. Every model, frontier or fine-tuned, is evaluated on the same 661-row slice with the same scoring pipeline. Two findings. First, frontier zero-shot baselines (Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5) reach sem_sim 0.459 and 0.482 respectively; a fine-tuned Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct reaches 0.783 and clears sem_sim >= 0.7 on 79% of rows, against 1-2% for either frontier baseline, a gap of 0.30 absolute on the same test set. Second, the same training data and recipe on Gemma-4-26B-A4B-IT scores only 0.441, in the same band as the frontier zero-shot baselines rather than the fine-tuned Qwen. We read this as a recipe-vs-model mismatch: the reasoning-tuned high-parameter model resists displacement and would likely need either more data or a stronger fine-tuning method.
Multimodal large language models increasingly reason over screenshots and documents where the task itself may be written in pixels. Yet benchmarks usually place questions in text, leaving it unclear whether models use the same instruction equally well across channels. We introduce Visualized Task Semantics (VTS), a controlled intervention that moves the question into the image while keeping the source problem and answer fixed. Across six MLLMs and four benchmarks, accuracy drops in all 24 model-task pairs, by 17.8 points on average. Models often transcribe the visual question correctly yet fail to use it, exposing a semantic channel gap beyond OCR. To reduce this gap, we present prompt-region grounding, whose core design aligns the question region with typed semantics and recovers its clean representation from a masked view. At matched training cost, our method raises four-benchmark VTS accuracy from 58.0 to 66.3 while preserving accuracy on the original interface, and requires no OCR or region metadata at inference. Reading task-bearing text and grounding it as an instruction for reasoning are distinct capabilities.
Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) is compute-intensive and error-prone: model performance depends sensitively on data quality and hyperparameter choices, and naïve runs can even degrade model performance. This raises a practical question:can we predict fine-tuning performance before committing to a full training run? We present TUNEAHEAD, a lightweight framework for pre-hoc prediction of fine-tuning performance. TUNEAHEAD encodes each candidate run as a meta-feature vector that combines static dataset descriptors with dynamic probe features from a short standardized probe. A predictor maps these features to performance estimates, while SHAP-based attributions provide interpretable diagnostics that reveal which specific features drive the prediction. Across 1,300+ fine-tuning runs on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, TUNEAHEAD consistently outperforms strong baselines such as Early-Stop Extrapolation and ProxyLM. On a held-out test set of 370 runs, TUNEAHEAD achieves an RMSE of 1.47 percentage points and places 95.1% of predictions within +3/-3 percentage points of the true score. These accurate continuous predictions support practical go/no-go screening policies that can reduce unnecessary full fine-tuning while retaining most promising runs.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as surrogates for human participants, but it remains unclear which models best capture human behavior and why. To address this, we introduce Psych-201, a novel dataset that enables us to measure behavioral alignment at scale. We find that post-training -- the stage that turns base models into useful assistants -- consistently reduces alignment with human behavior across model families, sizes, and objectives. Moreover, this misalignment widens in newer model generations even as base models continue to improve. Finally, we find that persona-induction -- a popular technique for eliciting human-like behavior by conditioning models on participant-specific information -- does not improve predictions at the level of individuals. Taken together, our results suggest that the very processes that are currently employed to turn LLMs into useful assistants also make them less accurate models of human behavior.