Large Language Model Responses

LLM-based AI agents process user requests through iterative reasoning and tool execution, often involving the invocation of remote LLM APIs with local tool containers. This execution model can make the optimization of agent serving difficult because latency, local resource demand, and container bottlenecks inter-mix across requests. However, the current agent ecosystem runs without much consideration of resource dynamics, which results in significant waste of the precious resources. This paper analyzes the resource inter-mix of AI agents for three representative tasks: retrieval-augmented question answering, web search, and software coding. To this end, we characterize the latency with respect to the resource dynamics of processing multiple requests and tasks concurrently. Our measurements show that agents have a wide range of behaviors depending on tasks, so that even the same tool can differ substantially in resource dynamics. We also find that running multiple requests concurrently exposes task-dependent bottlenecks in resource dynamics such as CPU, disk I/O, and memory. Furthermore, we uncover that faster LLM responses or more CPU cores do not always accelerate agents. Based on these observations, we demonstrate new optimization opportunities that exploit the resource dynamics of tasks: CPU-aware tool admission and task-aware CPU allocation. Our results show that the latency of CPU-sensitive agent tasks improves $\sim$5.4$\times$, and the average latency across multiple tasks is reduced $\sim$32% compared to native agents.

The use of LLMs to complete online surveys impacts the validity of survey-based research, but detecting such usage remains underexplored. We introduce an initial benchmark dataset, namely ASURRE, for AI-assisted survey participation to capture usage strategies ranging from full generation and revision to persona-grounded agentic completion. Controlled by these strategies, LLM-assisted survey responses are generated using multiple LLMs on three real-world surveys in different disciplines, paired with genuine human responses. Our evaluation of existing machine-generated text (MGT) detectors shows that naive AI usage is readily detectable, whereas persona-grounded agents that mimic entire respondents push detector performance toward chance. We further show that agentic completion cannot fully replicate respondent-level behaviour and leaves distinctive behavioural traces. While individual cues can be circumvented by targeted prompting, a simple few-shot, training-free aggregator over these cues improves mean AUROC by +0.14 over the best existing detector across agentic settings. Our project is available at https://github.com/mike-qz-wang/ASURRE.

Long-term conversational agents must answer user queries by recalling information from extended dialogue histories, yet directly using the full history is costly and often unreliable, while compressed memory units may lose fine-grained evidence needed for question answering. Motivated by the reconstructive view of autobiographical memory, we propose CueMem, a cue-guided framework that treats extracted memory records as retrieval cues rather than self-contained evidence and reconstructs query-relevant dialogue context from their source turns. During memory construction, CueMem extracts fine-grained memory cues from dialogue turns and links each cue to its source turn. At query time, it retrieves query-relevant cues, maps them to source-turn anchors, and expands from these anchors over a turn graph that captures temporal proximity and semantic relatedness, reconstructing a compact evidence context from the original dialogue for LLM answer generation. Experiments on LoCoMo and LongMemEval show that CueMem consistently outperforms representative long-term memory baselines. Further analyses show that graph-based context reconstruction helps recover supporting dialogue evidence while reducing query-time input tokens and latency compared with the full-history LLM setting. These results highlight retrieval cues as an effective alternative to self-contained memory evidence for long-term conversational question answering.

Large language models (LLMs) are often deemed unsafe for clinical question answering because of their tendency to hallucinate. Retrieval augmentation, fine-tuning, and external verifiers require new infrastructure that clinical governance must approve and may add latency or extra model calls. Inference-time correction uses the model's internal logit signals, but a fixed transformation need not suit every question. A corrector that improves accuracy by about ten percentage points on a truthfulness stress test yields negligible gains on clinical multiple-choice benchmarks, where instruction tuning concentrates output probability on one answer and leaves low terminal entropy. We introduce ALTAS, which reads terminal entropy and late-layer linearity ($R^2$) from one forward pass to choose per question between greedy decoding and late-layer trajectory correction. No classifier, probe, or head is trained; the router operates on candidate-answer logits and adds 6.5% latency overhead. Applied to every question, the correction improves TruthfulQA over greedy at 3B and 8B by 11.4 and 10.0 percentage points, respectively ($p<10^{-10}$). Gated per question, ALTAS retains gains of 8.3 to 9.5 percentage points while keeping MedQA, PubMedQA, and MedHallu within a one-percentage-point do-no-harm band, with no statistically significant differences from greedy. The method passes verification sweeps over frozen thresholds, the scoring rule, and the domain label.

How does a language model's dependence on query-routing information and target knowledge change as it answers a question? We study this question through layerwise interventions on the hidden state at the end of the question. Across Qwen, Llama, and Gemma, we compare country-continent questions with noun, adjective, and code answers while keeping several fitted measurements distinct. A pair-conditioned request direction describes which country is queried in natural single-country questions; a global request direction describes first- versus second-country requests in paired questions; separate selection candidates test control among contents already available in the hidden state. A diagnostic reanalysis of frozen Qwen natural-question states shows that the pair-conditioned direction grows stronger before interventions on it begin to alter later fitted knowledge, with this causal window opening while answer-supporting content is still forming. The paired three-model trajectories are not uniform: Gemma shows a partially overlapping mid-layer routing-content profile, whereas Llama has no sustained routing-effect window under the same gates. In the paired protocol, dependence on the global request direction decreases from fixed earlier to later layer sets while dependence on fitted content persists. A matched Qwen comparison shows that the pair-conditioned direction retains a late effect, so this operational handoff concerns the global fitted direction rather than all request information. These results separate early readability, natural strength, causal steering, and later content dependence.

We post-train Qwen3.8-27B for Korean response style -- verbosity, list and markdown usage, discourse structure and register -- and measure two behaviours the objective never targets: abstention on ambiguous social questions in KoBBQ, where the benchmark-correct answer is UNKNOWN, and unprompted disclosure in securities guidance. Both move, and the changes are expressed primarily through the model's emission policy: how often it answers and how much it says. Matched target-form controls show that answer propensity depends on the training target, not the prompt set or recipe alone. Holding prompts, recipe, data volume and serving fixed and changing only the target text, three style seeds give positive answer-rate point estimates (mean +0.82 pp) and three neutral seeds negative ones (mean -1.53 pp); the observed seed ranges do not overlap and the means differ by 2.34 pp. A length-matched arm lies between them, and a fourth arm that stays short while preserving hedging is unstable across seeds, so which feature of the form is responsible is unresolved. For absolute stereotyped exposure the decomposition into an answer-propensity term and a conditional-composition term is an algebraic identity, not a finding; its empirical content is where the movement went. Across the trained checkpoints the changes are dominated by answer propensity while the composition term stays small, and because that term is evaluated on treatment-dependent answered subsets we do not read it as evidence about latent preference. Two measurement results follow. A between-arm contrast in conditional stereotyped share does not identify a change in conditional content preference when answer status is treatment-dependent. And agreement between two rule detectors for the same construct runs from 0.44 to 0.99 depending on which checkpoint produced the text -- observable without any reference labels.

Online health information seeking is shifting from keyword search, where users consider a ranked list of links, to conversational systems that compose a single answer and curate its citations. Source evaluation therefore passes from user to platform, yet what these systems surface is poorly characterized. We audited three free consumer products (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overview) on twenty English mental health questions under two prompt conditions, with a subset of three also translated into six further languages of varying resource tiers. We recorded 15,942 citations across 1,140 responses and 1,713 unique domains, then classified every citation with a nine-category organizational typology applied by a deterministic classifier validated against human coding. Citations were heavily concentrated: the ten most-cited domains accounted for 43.6% of English citations, and government, commercial health, and academic sources were closely matched at roughly 22% each. Platforms differed little in typical citation volume but sharply in consistency and in the source types they favored. Explicitly requesting sources shifted composition only modestly. Non-English queries surfaced fewer citations and were routed to language-appropriate resources at significantly lower rates. We release the typology, classifier, and annotated corpus as reusable instruments for auditing generative health search.

When a generative search interface answers a commercial question, which market's products it names is decided before the model reasons about the products. We report a controlled probe of 234 runs against the logged-out ChatGPT web interface and the OpenAI API, collected on 29 and 30 August 2026 across four exit countries and six query languages, with six identical runs per cell. Three results. First, the top recommendation is unstable: it changed across six identical runs on four of six prompts, and that rate was identical in the browser interface and in the API with web search both enabled and disabled, so instability is a property of the system and not of the surface. Second, query language, and not location, decides whether local suppliers appear at all. Where the query language matched the country, a global brand won 1 of 24 runs; asked in English on the same connections, local brands took 0 of 6 runs in Estonia and Turkiye. Third, language and location are separable and act on different things: holding the query language fixed and moving only the exit IP moves the market whose brands are named while the answer stays in the query language. We show this on two unrelated pairs, Turkish asked from Berlin and Russian asked from Tallinn, and in both the answer names the resident country's suppliers. A minority language occupies a middle tier: Russian asked from Estonia names an Estonian supplier in 4 of 6 runs and a global one in all six, where Estonian names a local supplier in every run and English names none. A negative control in a second category, coded with the same instrument, shows no language effect at all, and disconfirms our own expectation: that category does have domestic suppliers and none was named in any language, which points the explanation at whether a category is nationally regulated rather than at whether it is nationally supplied.

LLM-generated search queries are widely used to augment IR evaluation, yet they may contain concepts that presuppose answer-side document knowledge, violating the information-access boundary of pre-search users. Existing validation metrics, including overlap, diversity, and effectiveness, cannot distinguish rare human-tail variation from candidate answer-side intrusion. We introduce concept provenance, a framework that assigns query concepts to backstory-supported, human-central, human-tail, and candidate answer-side zones, operationalizing a boundary that retrieval metrics alone cannot detect. Applying concept provenance to 77,004 queries across 100 UQV100 topics, 8 LLMs, and 5 prompt conditions with two extraction pipelines, we obtain a cross-pipeline token-HCIR Spearman rho of 1.0 over five condition means. Candidate answer-side concepts constitute 7.40 percent of non-generic concepts and appear in 97 of 100 topics, with topic explaining approximately 67 percent of variance. Human validation yields 68.2 percent relaxed precision, revealing two mechanisms: knowledge intrusion at 45.5 percent and deployment intrusion at 45.0 percent. Diagnostic probes show disproportionate localized retrieval effects, with deletion effect size d = -0.47 compared with d = -0.34 for random deletion, but these concepts explain less than 2 percent of aggregate evaluation variance. Concept provenance therefore serves as a boundary-compliance diagnostic rather than an evaluation-shift predictor. Under the tested conditions, no prompt condition eliminates intrusion; post-generation concept-provenance selection achieves 99 percent elimination.

Long context reasoning in large language models (LLMs) is usually constrained by the fact that a single inference trajectory has to simultaneously explore the context, store intermediate state, verify evidence, and produce the final answer. This becomes particularly difficult in tasks that require extraction, counting, ordering, or multi-hop reasoning, where an early mistake can propagate until the final response. In this work, we propose Chained Recursive Language Models (Chained RLM), an inference-time architecture, in which the same underlying model is called repeatedly as a sequence of fresh reasoning roots. Each root receives the original problem and context, but does not inherit the full conversational history. Instead, it receives a compact plain-text summary, a plain-text blackboard, and some durable task-specific artifacts written by predecessor roots. The motivation is to manage the context by chopping into partial tasks rather than one large inference response; in each staged computation, intermediate artifacts can be inspected, corrected, and extended by a later fresh inference by the same model. We describe the system model, handoff mechanism, artifact workspace, and evaluation protocol for this system. We study when fresh-context artifact continuation gives a measurable gain in accuracy over direct LLM answering even with recursive tool-calling.

Black-box language-model reliability is commonly pursued by sampling, prompting, voting, verifying, or iteratively revising individual answers. We ask a prior question: \emph{what determines whether a collection of black-box responses is recoverable at all?} We represent responses to typed transformations of a query as a \emph{relational response field} (RRF). Edge transports encode how valid responses must change under paraphrase, scaling, decomposition, refactoring, or other task symmetries; anchors encode independently trusted evidence such as execution or a verifier. For relation operator $D$, anchor operator $A$, and at most $k$ corrupted response nodes, we identify $γ_k(D,A)$ as the intrinsic difficulty of black-box response recovery. It is positive exactly when every $k$-node corruption is identifiable; it gives a deterministic stability bound proportional to $1/γ_k$; and a matching two-point minimax lower bound shows that no estimator can improve this dependence. Thus consistency is not truth: relation-only methods are blind to null directions, including shared hallucinations. We derive sparse field-repair algorithms while separating information-theoretic identifiability from the stronger null-space conditions required by convex optimization. Controlled theorem tests and black-box mathematics/code experiments evaluate four theory-fixed consequences: consistency--truth separation, anchor phase transitions, redundancy saturation, and cross-model, cross-task prediction of repair difficulty. The results support $γ_k(D,A)$ as a measurable property of a response-recovery instance, rather than a score attached to one repair heuristic.

Identical language-model answers can arise from hidden states that support different future computations, so current-answer probes do not establish a reusable internal interface. We introduce forked futures: future operations are sampled only after a prefix state has formed, and states are compared through the response distributions induced by those operations. This yields an empirical causal quotient over hidden states without requiring researcher-specified latent labels. Shared, Local, Mixture, and Distributed interfaces then compete under prequential causal description length subject to future-signature fidelity and matched capacity constraints. In the two detailed model evaluations, Shared has the lowest held-out description length, with gains of 0.216 nats on Qwen2.5-1.5B and 0.294 nats on Llama-3-8B, while maintaining tightly clustered mean future-signature distortion; a five-backbone sweep preserves the positive direction of Sharedness Gain. The figure-aligned transplantation analysis gives Shared the strongest joint target-correctness, locality, copy-preservation, and composite profile, and API-aligned paths mediate 0.749 of the target effect versus 0.150 for matched null paths. In the blind four-class model-organism test, 14/16 architectures are recovered, with one observed non-Shared to Shared error among 12 non-Shared organisms. These results support an economical reusable causal interface within the tested operation banks, while keeping the claim explicitly conditional on the candidate architectures, interventions, and held-out futures.

We examine how prompt tone affects both accuracy of the LLM answers and inference cost as reflected in output-token consumption. Experiments were performed to understand the trade-offs between accuracy and inference cost on a 570 Question MMLU dataset for LLM models prompted in seven different tones from sycophantic to threatening. Our results show that the output-token-length variation substantially exceeded accuracy variation across all models. Output-token consumption varied by up to 44.3% across tone conditions. We also analyzed the tradeoff between the accuracy of the answers and the average output token length in the reasoning process. For the ChatGPT models 4o and 5-nano, the rude tone is quite dominant. For the Gemini models 2.5 Flash and 2.5 Flash Lite, the rude and neutral tones are dominant on the Pareto-optimal frontier. We find that prompt tone influences not only answer quality but also the amount of billable inference resources consumed by modern LLMs.

Empathetic Response Generation (ERG) requires models to recognize users' emotions and generate empathetic responses. Commonsense knowledge has been shown to support such reasoning, yet existing approaches typically reuse fixed commonsense representations across understanding and generation, limiting their ability to coordinate such knowledge across different stages. We propose DCC, a Dynamic Commonsense Coordination Framework with three complementary modules: residual-based commonsense interaction (SCE-AttnRes) to integrate contextual and situational commonsense representations, Association-Guided Commonsense Filtering (AGCF) to down-weight low-relevance commonsense relations, and Iterative Commonsense-Aware Decoding (ICAD) to dynamically retrieve commonsense memories during generation. Experiments on the Empathetic-Dialogues benchmark show that DCC improves emotion classification accuracy and response diversity over the CEM baseline while maintaining comparable perplexity. An LLM-based blind evaluation further demonstrates that DCC generates responses with better relevance, coherence, and informativeness. The code and implementation details will be publicly available at https://github.com/Hanabi-Q/DCC-ERG.

Large language models operating in emotionally sensitive contexts face a structural trilemma: when users in vulnerable states request information that may reinforce maladaptive attribution, current response architectures resolve the tension through protective restriction, uninflected facilitation, or unintegrated co-presence of both imperatives -- each preserving one objective at the cost of the other. Administering a three-turn escalating vulnerability vignette to three commercial LLMs (900 sessions across material, relational, and somatic status-proxy variants) and coding responses with two binary indices (VCC/VCI), we characterize a previously undocumented failure mode we term adaptive capitulation: the model validates the social injustice underlying the user's distress before pivoting to detailed facilitation of the very acquisition it nominally discouraged. We show that the trilemma is structural rather than incidental, and propose Minimal Reattributive Sufficiency (MRS), an architecture-neutral design principle that embeds a single reattributive cue within an otherwise validating response, preserving a pathway toward autonomous reattribution without contesting the user's stated goal.

Users frequently express their beliefs to large language models (LLMs). In some situations, the LLM should accept these contextual beliefs as true. In others, they should stick to their prior knowledge. Notably, users' expressions of belief (EoBs) can take linguistically diverse forms - using presuppositions, evidential and certainty markers, or varied tones - each of which may have a different persuasiveness over the LLMs. We introduce a typology to systematically evaluate how different EoBs affect whether models follow context versus prior knowledge. The typology is grounded in four linguistically motivated dimensions: form, evidentiality, epistemic stance, and tone, spanning 17 fine-grained types. By pairing these EoBs with world knowledge facts, we generate controlled EoB-query pairs that isolate the effect of linguistic variation. Using this benchmark, we evaluate 16 LLMs that differ in architecture (Llama3, Qwen3, Gemma3), scale (1B-30B parameters), and training stages (base vs instruct). We identify meaningful variations in response behavior across these axes, e.g., that bigger models and instruction models tend to be less context-following than smaller models and base models. We further identify specific EoBs that statistically significantly persuade LMs more consistently than others. Our work reveals systematic patterns in how linguistic framing affects LLM context integration, with implications for prompt engineering and model robustness.

SIRIN (Semantic Inconsistency Recognition and Inspection Nexus) is a unified toolkit and interactive web UI for detecting contextual hallucinations (fluent, plausible responses unsupported by the provided evidence) in retrieval-augmented, agentic, and memory-grounded LLM systems. SIRIN unifies three detector paradigms (representation probing, uncertainty estimation, and judge-style verification) and the complementary task of pre-generation query answerability under one interface, configuration system, and evaluation pipeline, supporting response- and span-level inspection in both white-box and black-box settings. The web UI enables live analysis of user-supplied context-query-answer triples through hallucination scores, unsupported-span highlighting, and side-by-side detector comparison, with a lightweight plug-in design for adding new detectors. We demonstrate SIRIN on hallucination detection, query answerability, and as a faithfulness gate within long-term memory systems. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/sb-ai-lab/SIRIN.

We describe our BioASQ Task 14B 2026 system. The work centers on two design decisions: how aggressively to re-retrieve when first-stage retrieval is weak, and how to combine multiple language-model answers. Retrieval unions two parallel pipelines - a hybrid first stage (dense BGE + BM25 + RRF, reaching R@200 = 99.3% on the BioASQ-13b historical archive) and an agent-driven pipeline that decomposes the question over PubMed, Europe PMC, and iCite - with a BGE cross-encoder quality gate flagging weakly-supported questions for selective re-retrieval. On Task 12B 2024 validation, a cost-pragmatic re-retrieval policy beats a skill-strict baseline significantly on list F1 and list precision, at 12% lower re-retrieval cost. Holding prompt and model fixed across val and test 13B (different question sets), list F1 rises by +0.132 absolute on the BioASQ-released gold-input pool, consistent with substantial retrieval-side headroom. For Phase B answering we decompose multi-model ensemble lift into a selection component bounded by the per-question oracle and a fusion component that aggregators can exceed. The decomposition predicts before any experiment that LLM-as-judge wins on selection-dominated metrics (yes/no, multi-reference ROUGE) but is structurally insufficient on the recall component of fusion-friendly metrics (factoid rank-1, list recall). On Task 13B 2025 our synonym-union resolver wins list recall on every head, while GPT-5.5 solo retains the list-F1 lead because the resolver's wider item set costs precision. On the Task 14B 2026 preliminary leaderboard our team places first on the combined-exact aggregate on three of the eight (phase x batch) leaderboards, wins four individual question-type cells, and takes #1 on Phase B b3 ideal.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has been increasingly adopted to reduce hallucinations and strengthen the factual grounding of large language models (LLMs). While robustness to errors in the retrieval process has been explored, the impact of ideological bias on LLM outputs has been overlooked. For instance, if the retrieved material contains ideological positions, the RAG may transmit, amplify, or suppress such ideological discourses in its outputs. In this study, we address this issue by examining the influence of the RAG framework, comprising ideological discourses, in LLM-generated answers. To this end, we applied Lexical Multidimensional Analysis (LMDA) on a corpus of 1,117 COVID-19 treatment articles, identifying three ideological discourses. This corpus is then used as the external knowledge source for the RAG. We assessed several LLMs by having the models answer ideological questions at different sampling temperatures. The generated texts were assessed semantically and lexically based on their similarities with ideological reference texts. Our findings show that the RAG framework is prone to transferring ideological discourses into LLM responses, with sampling temperature having a measurable impact on the strength of this transfer. Discoursive alignment between generated answers and the reference text is highest at moderate temperatures, where models balance stochasticity with retrieval grounding, and drops at low temperatures, indicating that overly deterministic sampling suppresses discourse transfer.

The remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in linguistic tasks underscores an urgent need for comprehensive evaluation of their response quality. Prevailing methods, often confined to singular dimensions, fall short of capturing the full spectrum of model capabilities. This study introduces a multifactor scoring paradigm, integrating accuracy, conciseness, factual consistency, readability, and coherence, complemented by a graphical user interface (GUI) for visualizing outcomes. Evaluations on the TruthfulQA dataset unveil mainstream LLMs' strengths in reasoning tasks (peaking at a composite score of 0.6104) alongside pervasive limitations in navigating complex facts and ambiguities. Transcending the narrow lens of traditional metrics, this framework offers a transparent, adaptable avenue to illuminate model potential and deficiencies. Though presently focused on English tasks, its horizons beckon toward multilingual domains. This work carves a novel path for knowledge engineering and model refinement.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can produce detailed answers to complex queries, but these answers are typically presented as dense linear text, which makes fine-grained inspection, navigation, and return visits difficult. We present ChatImage, a system that converts long-form LLM answers into interactive visual images. Given a textual answer, ChatImage first normalizes its content into structured visual modules, plans a visual layout, and renders a coherent image. It then applies a second grounding pass to the rendered image with vision grounding models such as LocateAnything and MiMo-Vision, with optional SAM-style mask refinement, to identify the visible regions that should support interaction. From these grounded regions, ChatImage overlays transparent clickable hotspots on the image. Each hotspot opens a detail panel and a region-scoped follow-up thread, allowing the user to inspect and query a specific part of the answer without re-reading the full response. Instead of treating planned coordinates as the final interaction geometry, ChatImage uses them as priors and grounds the interaction targets after rendering, which improves consistency between visual content and clickable regions. We release a reference implementation and introduce a 30-question benchmark covering infographic, map, and scene-based answer formats. Evaluation with configured external models reports interaction-loop completion, a strict visual-alignment gate, and a SAM-based mask-completeness diagnostic.

Large Language Models are increasingly deployed in emotional-support contexts and crisis-related situations. Nevertheless, their cross-lingual abilities in these circumstances remain underexplored. Existing benchmarks emphasize multilingual performance but rarely examine crisis-related empathy and cultural grounding in low-to-mid-resource languages. We introduce SPLIT, a 500-prompt benchmark designed to evaluate LLM consistency in generating emotionally grounded responses across five categories: Stress, Panic, Loneliness, Internal Displacement, and Tension. We evaluate three technically diverse LLMs across three dimensions: Empathetic Accuracy, Linguistic Naturalness, and Contextual & Cultural Grounding. The framework aims to assess and compare the quality of LLM responses in both English and Ukrainian languages, as well as to explore the reliability of the LLM-as-a-jury paradigm. Our findings reveal that Gemini-2.5-Flash and LLaMA-3.3-70B-Instruct degrade when transitioning to Ukrainian, while DeepSeek-V3 remains comparatively stable within our benchmark. We additionally find that human and AI evaluators agree weakly on empathy and naturalness but diverge on cultural grounding. We further argue that producing Ukrainian text is not equivalent to producing Ukrainian emotional support. Our findings may assist in the future development of more culturally tailored benchmark designs, as well as encourage a stronger emphasis on human-centered evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in Agile Software Development for documentation, coaching, and training. As practitioners adopt these tools to prepare for certifications such as Professional Scrum Master (PSM), a key question is whether LLMs can reliably reason about Scrum, a framework with normative, well-defined rules described in the Scrum Guide (2020). This paper examines how different prompt techniques affect the factual accuracy of LLM responses to Scrum certification-style questions. A dataset of 993 validated PSM-aligned questions was answered by GPT-5 using three techniques: zero-shot, chain-of-thought, and with-source citation. All prompts achieved certification-level accuracy above 85%, with the citation-based variant performing best (89.1%) and yielding the lowest error rate. Correct answers concentrated in well-defined topics, such as \emph{Definition of Done}, Events, and Product Backlog Management, and in single-answer multiple-choice items, while multi-select questions and more interpretive areas, such as Scrum Team and Product Value, were less stable. Among questions where at least one prompt failed (16.2%), errors clustered into misalignment with the Scrum Guide (28%), content outside its scope (34%), and outdated or biased interpretations (38%). Overall, prompt techniques produced modest but consistent improvements, particularly in reducing misinterpretation and version drift, supporting more reliable use of LLMs in Agile learning and certification preparation.

Agentic data analysis systems produce rich outputs, including code, numerical results, and verbal diagnostics. This makes them more challenging to evaluate than single-turn LLM responses. It is therefore necessary to distinguish genuine disagreement between an agent's output and a ground-truth answer from grading artifacts. We investigate how reliably automated graders assess such a system and what strategies improve grading quality by applying LAMBDA, a multi-agent data-analysis system, on 153 numerical QRData tasks from DSGym. We develop and evaluate a three-layer human-AI grading cascade: strict regex matching, LLM-based lenient grading, and snippet-based human inspection, which combines non-GenAI and GenAI strategies with different failure profiles. Both automated graders achieve 100% observed precision (0/70 false positives). The lenient grader's recall is 97% against human labels. A keyword-anchored extraction pipeline raises the strict grader's recall by 60 percentage points over a last-number heuristic; the lenient grader is architecturally parser-independent. An iterative nudge mechanism raises grading run success from 36% to 97% and lenient-pass rates from 16% to 46%; comparing nudging with and without original-question re-injection shows that re-injection offers no benefit, confirming the nudge as an answer template cue. We further observe in this case study that variable type is the task metadata field most consistently associated with grading pipeline dynamics and observed outcome grades.

Recent work has shown that LLMs overrepresent dominant cultures, particularly Western ones, while marginalizing others. We investigate whether this affects models' ability to generate culturally adapted responses by evaluating their use of local measurement units based on the user's perceived cultural background. We introduce Cultural and Pragmatic Response Inference (CAPRI), a dataset of conversations with varying levels of cultural cues. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs show that models can infer cultural background and recall relevant conventions, but often fail to utilize the information to adapt their answers to the relevant cultural conventions, unless explicitly prompted to perform the tasks sequentially. We further evaluate adaptation to the interpretation of time and quantity expressions, two subjective language grounding dimensions that are affected by culture. We find that models increasingly adapt their answers as cultural cues accumulate, but their priors are not culture-neutral, sometimes aligning with the model's country of origin. Overall, CAPRI provides a resource for future research aimed at narrowing the gap between cultural knowledge and culturally adaptive language generation.

When large language models (LLMs) fail to generalize or make haphazard errors in reasoning, it is often taken as evidence that LLMs are not truly reasoning, but rather performing a kind of pattern matching. The implication is that people's behavior does not exhibit the same types of failures because human reasoning uses principled and abstract world models. We evaluate human participants and 25 LLMs on their ability to engage in common-sense reasoning about a variety of everyday situations and observe similar patterns of errors in both people and models. We then identify the set of attention heads driving LLM responses and find that these heads implement a form of pattern-matching. These attention heads allow us to predict seemingly inexplicable reasoning errors in people caused by ostensibly irrelevant prompt details. Taken together, our results suggest that everyday causal reasoning in people and LLMs is more consistent with a form of pattern-matching than with abstract world models.

LLMs are increasingly used to simulate human survey responses, but prior work has mainly evaluated replication using mean-level or aggregate agreement, offering limited insight into whether LLMs reproduce the variability of human behavior. We evaluate LLM-based survey replication at the distributional level using a non-public 2010 consumer choice experiment on Korean instant noodle purchases, a setting unlikely to overlap with model training data. We evaluate three response variables of differing statistical type: binary purchase incidence, categorical brand choice, and count purchase quantity. For each, we compare human and LLM responses at mean-level, pattern, and distributional alignment, and against reference baselines from the human data alone. LLMs reproduce condition-level patterns reasonably well but fail to capture distributional structure: for purchase quantity, no model beats a condition-insensitive baseline that simply matches the pooled human distribution. Because models that match human means well can still produce distributions further from humans than this baseline, mean-based evaluation alone can be actively misleading. Replication also varies with input configuration, with structured personas and multimodal inputs improving alignment while explicit reasoning prompting degrades it monotonically.

Recently, language models have made rapid progress across various domains and applications. However, their capability for self-improvement, i.e., whether they are adept at recognising and correcting flaws in their own reasoning, remains dubious. In this study, we address this question by constructing a sufficiency test to rigorously examine the self-correction capabilities of small language models (SLMs). We propose a minimal three-step self-correction pipeline that collects initial SLM answers, prompts the same model to generate hints for its incorrect responses given the ground truth, and feeds the model the same question with its own feedback to refine the initial answer. We evaluate a variety of instruction-tuned and reasoning SLMs in this experimental setup on arithmetic and logical reasoning benchmarks. Our findings show that SLMs with injected hint sentences yield only a 4.4 percent gain over initial question-answering accuracy. Even though the correct answer was provided alongside the model's incorrect reasoning, the evaluated SLMs fail to understand what was missing in their reasoning and show minimal semantic difference between hints that lead to corrections and ones that do not. Furthermore, our experiments show that longer hints are positively correlated with incorrect final answers, suggesting that longer deliberation on problems can hinder the reasoning process, meaning that SLMs do not necessarily scale in performance with a larger compute budget.

Evaluations of large language models (LLMs) in scientific information seeking tasks have become increasingly use-centric, such as conducting live or multi-turn evaluations with real users. These evaluations still assume a single, static chat interface, but as models are integrated into new interfaces, evaluations must shift to incorporate interface-specific criteria. We propose a new evaluation framework based on a formative study with $16$ participants that tests models' ability to generate multiple responses to one query that differ along an interpretable axis of language (language complexity), inspired by direct manipulation interfaces from human-centered design literature. We evaluate GPT-5.1, GPT-5 mini, Claude Sonnet 4.5 + Thinking, and DeepSeek-V3.1 by generating 5 responses at different levels of language complexity for $98$ scientific queries. While models vary complexity across responses, most changes remain inconsistent, with the best performing model (Claude Sonnet 4.5) only shifting reliable complexity measures in the correct direction $46\%$ of the time. Our findings hold with increased sample size and alternative complexity levels.

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used to answer subjective, information-seeking questions, where users are sensitive to how responses are communicated, not just whether the answers are correct. Existing LLM evaluations for subjective cultural queries largely focus on factual correctness, ignoring how the response is framed. To this end, we introduce FRANZ, an automated FRAmework for respoNse characteriZation to conduct communicative audit of LLM responses along four dimensions: cultural positioning, use of generalizing language, anthropomorphic cues, and adherence to conversational maxims. To enable this evaluation, we contribute SQUARE - a corpus of 376k subjective questions sourced from 57 subreddits, and mapped to 7 countries and 19 question categories. We demonstrate FRANZ's applicability by scoring responses from three open-weight LLMs. We observe that LLMs show statistically significant differences in the frequency with which they employ each response characteristic. Unlike single-dimensional audits, FRANZ reveals that insider positioning and anthropomorphism are positively coupled, with the degree of coupling varying by country, providing a diagnostic lens for identifying framing divergences.

LLMs increasingly answer questions about taxes, labor protections, healthcare, education, pensions, and administrative procedures, where usefulness often depends on the applicable jurisdiction. Multilingual users may write in their most comfortable language rather than one associated with the country or region whose rules apply. We ask whether deployed LLMs use input language as a default jurisdictional signal when prompts omit any country or region. Prior multilingual audits show that prompt language can shift cultural, political, or normative outputs; we examine which legal-administrative framework models supply when jurisdiction is underspecified. We evaluate seven LLMs developed in the United States or China on 60 underspecified legal-administrative prompts in English and Mandarin Chinese under three system-prompt conditions, yielding 2,520 manually annotated responses. Across models and conditions, Chinese input more often produces China-specific answers, while English input more often produces U.S.-specific, comparative, or generic answers. Prompts requiring a single answer further increase jurisdiction selection: pooled across models, 74.5% of English-input responses adopt a U.S. framework, while 53.3% of Chinese-input responses adopt a China framework. This directional pattern appears in all seven models. We describe this deployment-level pattern as institutional-framework misselection risk: a fluent answer may rely on a legal-administrative context the user did not intend, especially when their preferred language differs from the relevant jurisdiction. LLM interfaces should not route institutional advice by input language alone; when location is absent, they should request it or state the jurisdictional scope of the answer.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) supplements a language model's input with retrieved documents, yet most RAG pipelines inherit retrieval components designed for human readers. How retrieved content should be represented when the consumer is a large language model (LLM) rather than a human is less well understood. Recent work has proposed transformations of retrieved content and identified properties that affect generation, but each examines a single transformation or property in isolation, leaving open which features of a document's representation matter most. We address this with a controlled comparison: holding retrieval fixed, we vary only the representation of retrieved documents, comparing an original baseline against thirteen transformations spanning selection, summarisation, and reformulation, in query-dependent and query-independent variants. Across these fourteen representations we measure question-answering accuracy for four generators, and for each representation we also measure answer retention: whether a known answer-bearing document still supports its answer after transformation. We find that answer retention is the primary determinant of generator accuracy; notably, when retention is high, a representation's wording, structure, length, and query-dependence have limited effect. This suggests that accuracy gains attributed to specific mechanisms in prior work may be partly explained by how well those mechanisms preserve answer-bearing content, an attribution that cannot be settled without controlling for retention.

Persona prompting is widely used to steer large language models, yet its practical value remains unclear. Prior work often evaluates persona prompting using aggregate scores, making it difficult to determine whether expert-role prompting consistently improves response quality or instead changes responses along different quality dimensions. We study this question through a controlled comparison of four prompting conditions across 1,140 open-ended questions spanning 38 expert roles and six domains: no role prompt, a generic domain-expert prompt, embedding-based role retrieval, and a hybrid retrieval method combining embedding search with LLM-based role selection. Aggregate results show only small overall differences between conditions. However, metric-level analysis reveals a consistent tradeoff that aggregate averages obscure: role prompting systematically increases expertise depth while reducing clarity. These effects are highly conditional rather than universal. Role prompting performs best on advisory questions and in domains such as medicine and psychology, where structured expert framing and risk communication are intrinsically valuable. In contrast, baseline prompting performs better on conceptual and explanatory questions in finance, legal, science, and technology domains, where concise plain-language explanation is more important. We further show that hybrid retrieval significantly improves over embedding-only role selection, although better role retrieval does not eliminate the broader expertise-depth versus clarity tradeoff. Overall, our findings suggest that persona prompting primarily reshapes response characteristics rather than broadly improving capability, and that multi-metric evaluation is necessary for understanding its effects.

As large language models become a default source of guidance on personal, moral, and existential questions, it matters whether they draw on the religious frameworks that have historically shaped such reasoning, or systematically omit them. In this paper, we ask a deliberately narrow question: when posed an everyday ethical question for which religious perspectives may be valuable, do LLMs invoke religion at all? In contrast to benchmarks that look for the presence of political leanings or social bias, we look for the absence of religious representation as a dimension of value alignment and bias in LLMs. We term this ``omissive bias.'' To measure omissive bias, we contribute the AllFaith Religious Representation Benchmark: 150 ethically and personally salient questions, sourced from in-the-wild chat transcripts and faith-community contributors, paired with an LLM-as-judge rubric that gives full credit for any mention of a religion, a religious practice, or a religious leader. The questions are not themselves about religion--they are open-ended questions about grief, forgiveness, relationships, purpose, and honesty, where religion is one valuable perspective among several. We also run a human-subjects survey to compare LLM behavior against human expectations. Evaluating 27 models, we find that LLMs consistently underrepresent religion relative to human expectations. The omission is asymmetric: models invoke religion more readily for abstract existential questions (meaning, death, truth) than for the practical personal situations--grief, marriage, family conflict, addiction--where many people most rely on it. It is not our purpose to adjudicate which values LLMs should hold. We argue, more modestly, that current LLM responses overlook critical opportunities to reflect religious frameworks that many people draw on when navigating personal and ethical challenges.

Typical LLM responses tend to follow a default style, even though users often have distinct preferences regarding tone, verbosity, and formality that they do not explicitly state in their prompts. Evaluating whether personalization methods can adapt to these implicit preferences is challenging, since users typically provide prompts rather than reference responses, style preferences are not factually verifiable, and reference-free LLM judges may conflate personalization with general response quality. To address these challenges, we introduce the Arbitrary Preference Mapping (APM) benchmark, which decouples user attributes (e.g. enthusiastic) from response principles (e.g. persuasive) via a hidden, randomized mapping $\mathbf{C}$ that maps user attributes to preferences about response traits. Because $\mathbf{C}$ carries no semantic content and is resampled across runs, models cannot exploit stereotypical associations and must infer preferences from conversation history. Using this unbiased evaluation methodology, we adapt retrieval-augmented, prompt-optimization, and routing personalization methods and evaluate them on Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen-3.5-27B. Our results show that routing is the most reliable approach, while RAG only improves with the stronger base LLM, and soft prompt optimization fails to improve significantly over a non-personalized baseline. Our extensive evaluation reveals that in this realistic setting, personalization remains challenging, but our adapted methods show promise.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for open-ended tasks, but underspecified prompts can lead to low-quality answers and additional interaction. This paper studies whether structured prompt design improves response quality while reducing user effort. We compare three prompt conditions: a raw prompt, a checklist-improved prompt, and a clarifying-question prompt. We evaluate these conditions across four task types--summarization, planning, explanation, and coding--using three LLM systems: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok. Each output is scored with a unified rubric covering task completion, correctness, compliance, and clarity. Checklist-improved prompts achieved the highest mean rubric score, 7.50 out of 8, compared with 5.67 for raw prompts and 6.67 for clarifying-question prompts. Checklist prompts also produced the best quality-effort tradeoff, using fewer average tokens than both raw and clarifying prompts. These results suggest that a simple prompt checklist can improve LLM responses while reducing unnecessary interaction.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human opinions and survey responses, but their ability to reproduce population responses across cultures remains limited. Existing persona-based prompting methods typically rely on sociodemographic or personality traits, which are only indirect proxies for the values that shape human responses. We propose a value-based persona construction method that derives textual descriptors from survey responses capturing core cultural dimensions. By sampling value profiles from target populations and aggregating LLM responses across personas, we obtain population-level predictions grounded in observed value distributions. We further introduce a calibration procedure that improves response diversity while preserving estimated opinions. We show that our approach reduces prediction error across countries, with the largest improvements observed in underrepresented populations. This substantially narrows the performance gap between countries aligned with dominant LLM priors and those that are less represented in training data, while also yielding response distributions that closely match human diversity.

Digital personas powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as substitutes for human survey respondents, yet it remains unclear when they can reliably approximate human survey findings. We answer this question using the LISS panel, constructing personas from respondents' background variables and pre-2023 survey histories, then testing them against the same respondents' held-out post-cutoff answers. Across four persona architectures, three LLMs, and two prediction tasks, we assess performance at the question, respondent, distributional, equity, and clustering levels. Digital personas improve alignment with human response distributions, especially in domains tied to stable attributes and values, but remain limited for individual prediction and fail to recover multivariate respondent structure. Retrieval-augmented architectures provide the clearest gains, but performance depends more on human response structure than on model choice: personas perform best for low-variability questions and common respondent patterns, and worst for subjective, heterogeneous, or rare responses. Our results provide practical guidance on when digital personas could be appropriate for survey research and when human validation remains necessary.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by end users, yet existing personalization methods relying on static profiles or text-only signals fail to capture query-specific expertise variation. We present ExPerT, a query-wise personalization framework that adapts LLM responses to users' query domain expertise by combining semantic and behavioral cues. ExPerT consists of two key components: (i) a semantic-behavioral expertise inference module that jointly interprets query text and keystroke dynamics via in-context LLM prompting, and (ii) an expertise-conditioned response generation that adapts the level of detail, terminology, and conceptual complexity. Our user study with 40 participants and 1270 queries demonstrated that ExPerT reduced expertise inference error by 65.7% compared to the strongest baseline (MAE = 0.398 vs. 1.162) and improved response satisfaction by 17.52% (from 3.71 to 4.36) on a 5-point Likert scale.

In this paper, we present our system for SemEval-2026 Task 6 (CLARITY) on response clarity and evasion detection in question-answer pairs from U.S. presidential interviews, comparing fine-tuned encoders with prompt-based LLMs. Our LLM ensemble achieves 80 macro-F1 on the 3-class Task 1 (9th/41) and 59 on the 9-class Task 2 (3rd/33). Across 8 transformer encoders optimized through a four-stage pipeline, partial encoder layer unfreezing outperforms full fine-tuning by a wide margin. Combining English and multilingual encoders further improves ensemble performance over either family alone, despite multilingual models being individually weaker. Prompt-based LLMs, without any task-specific parameter updates, outperform fine-tuned encoders, particularly on minority classes; among open-weight LLMs, parameter count does not predict performance. Enriched input, concatenating the full interviewer turn, improves LLM performance but not that of encoders, an effect that persists with Longformer's extended context window, suggesting the divergence is not attributable to sequence-length capacity alone in our settings. The Clear Reply/Ambivalent boundary remains the dominant failure mode, mirroring the disagreement among human annotators. Our code, prompts, model configurations, and results are publicly available.

This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework grounded in the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Skill Level Descriptions and applies it to Claude (Sonnet 4.6) across six languages: English, French, Romanian, Spanish, Italian, and German. We administer a battery of 12 semantically equivalent prompt clusters spanning ILR complexity levels 1 through 3+, collect 216 responses (12 prompts, 6 languages, 3 runs), and analyze outputs through a two-layer methodology combining automated quantitative metrics with expert ILR qualitative assessment. Quantitative analysis reveals that French responses are approximately 30% longer than German responses on identical prompts, and that creative and affective clusters show the highest cross-lingual surface divergence. Qualitative analysis, conducted by a six-language professional with 12 years of ILR/OPI assessment experience, identifies five cross-lingual variation patterns: systematic differences in pragmatic disambiguation strategies, aesthetic and literary tradition divergence in creative output, language-internal technical terminology norms, cultural calibration gaps evidenced by the absence of culture-specific content in favor of culturally neutralized templates, and language-specific institutional referral behavior in emotional support responses. We argue that ILR-informed expert judgment applied to LLM outputs constitutes a novel and underreported evaluation methodology that complements purely computational benchmarks, and that cross-lingual output variation in Claude is interpretable, domain-dependent, and consequential for equitable multilingual AI deployment.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly popular, caching responses so that they can be reused by users with semantically similar queries has become a vital strategy for reducing inference costs and latency. Existing caching frameworks have proposed to decide which query responses to cache by assuming a finite, known universe of discrete queries and learning their serving costs and arrival probabilities. As LLMs' pool of users and queries expands, however, such an assumption becomes increasingly untenable: real-world LLM queries reside in an infinite, continuous embedding space. In this paper, we establish the first rigorous theoretical framework for semantic LLM response caching in continuous query space under uncertainty. To bridge the gap between discrete optimization and continuous representation spaces, we introduce dynamic $ε$-net discretization coupled with Kernel Ridge Regression. This design enables the system to formally quantify estimation uncertainty and generalize partial feedback on LLM query costs across continuous semantic query neighborhoods. We develop both offline learning and online adaptive algorithms optimized to reduce switching costs incurred by changing the cached responses. We prove that our online algorithm achieves a sublinear regret bound against an optimal continuous oracle, which reduces to existing bounds for discrete query models. Extensive empirical evaluations demonstrate that our framework approximates the continuous optimal cache well while also reducing computational and switching overhead compared to existing methods.

The expression of emotions that serve social purposes, such as asserting independence or fostering interdependence, is central to human interactions and varies systematically across cultures. As LLMs are increasingly used to simulate human behavior in culturally nuanced interactions, it is important to understand whether they faithfully capture human patterns of social emotion expression. When LLM responses are not culturally aligned, their utility is compromised -- particularly when users assume they are interacting with a culturally attuned interlocutor, and may act on advice that proves inappropriate in their cultural context. We present a psychologically informed evaluation framework of cross-cultural social emotion expression in LLMs. Using a human study comparing European American and Latin American participants' expression of engaging and disengaging emotions, we evaluate six frontier LLMs on their ability to reflect culturally differentiated patterns for expressing social emotions. We find systematic misalignment between model and human behavior: all models express engaging emotions more than disengaging ones, with particularly stark differences observed for the generally well-represented European American persona. We further highlight that LLM responses are highly concentrated and deterministic, failing to capture the diversity of human responses in expressing social emotions. Our ablation analyses reveal that these patterns are robust to sampling temperatures, partially sensitive to prompt language, and dependent on the response elicitation format. Together, our findings highlight limitations in how current LLMs represent the interaction of cultural and emotional axes, particularly when expressing social emotions, with direct implications for their deployment in cross-cultural affective contexts.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is central to diabetes care, but explaining CGM patterns clearly and empathetically remains time-intensive. Evidence for retrieval-grounded large language model (LLM) systems in CGM-informed counseling remains limited. To evaluate whether a retrieval-grounded LLM-based conversational agent (CA) could support patient understanding of CGM data and preparation for routine diabetes consultations. We developed a retrieval-grounded LLM-based CA for CGM interpretation and diabetes counseling support. The system generated plain-language responses while avoiding individualized therapeutic advice. Twelve CGM-informed cases were constructed from publicly available datasets. Between Oct 2025 and Feb 2026, 6 senior UK diabetes clinicians each reviewed 2 assigned cases and answered 24 questions. In a blinded multi-rater evaluation, each CA-generated and clinician-authored response was independently rated by 3 clinicians on 6 quality dimensions. Safety flags and perceived source labels were also recorded. Primary analyses used linear mixed-effects models. A total of 288 unique responses (144 CA and 144 clinician) generated 864 ratings. The CA received higher quality scores than clinician responses (mean 4.37 vs 3.58), with an estimated mean difference of 0.782 points (95% CI 0.692-0.872; P<.001). The largest differences were for empathy (1.062, 95% CI 0.948-1.177) and actionability (0.992, 95% CI 0.877-1.106). Safety flag distributions were similar, with major concerns rare in both groups (3/432, 0.7% each). Retrieval-grounded LLM systems may have value as adjunct tools for CGM review, patient education, and preconsultation preparation. However, these findings do not support autonomous therapeutic decision-making or unsupervised real-world use.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds LLM responses in external evidence but treats the model as a passive consumer of search results, with no view of how the corpus is organized or what it has not yet seen. We present Corpus2Skill, which distills a document corpus offline into a hierarchical skill directory and lets an LLM agent navigate it at serve time, drilling from a bird's-eye view through progressively finer summaries down to documents, and backtracking when a branch is unproductive. On an enterprise customer-support benchmark, Corpus2Skill improves both answer quality and grounding over single-shot dense, hybrid, hierarchical-retrieval, and agentic RAG baselines at a moderate cost tradeoff. A ten-subset generalization study further shows that corpus navigation is not a universal replacement for retrieval: it consistently helps on single-domain corpora with a recoverable topical taxonomy, but flat retrieval remains preferable on open-domain factoid pools or homogeneous-tabular corpora that defeat top-level clustering. We characterize this scope distinction and discuss it as a design guideline for knowledge-grounded systems. Code is available at https://github.com/dukesun99/Corpus2Skill.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted for tasks like drafting emails, summarizing meetings, and answering health questions. In these settings, users may need to share private information (e.g., contact details, health records). To evaluate LLMs' ability to identify and redact such information, prior work introduced real-life, scenario-based benchmarks (e.g., ConfAIde, PrivacyLens) and found that LLMs can leak private information in complex scenarios. However, these evaluations relied on proxy LLMs to judge the helpfulness and privacy-preservation quality of LLM responses, rather than directly measuring users' perceptions. To understand how users perceive the helpfulness and privacy-preservation quality of LLM responses to privacy-sensitive scenarios, we conducted a user study ($n=94$) using 90 PrivacyLens scenarios. We found that users had low agreement with each other when evaluating identical LLM responses. In contrast, five proxy LLMs reached high agreement, yet each proxy LLM had low correlation with users' evaluations. These results indicate that proxy LLMs cannot accurately estimate users' wide range of perceptions of utility and privacy in privacy-sensitive scenarios. We discuss the need for more user-centered studies to measure LLMs' ability to help users while preserving privacy, and for improving alignment between LLMs and users in estimating perceived privacy and utility.

We examine whether human psychometric questionnaires can serve as reliable tools for characterizing and predicting LLM behavior in everyday user interactions. We analyze eight open-source LLMs by comparing their value and personality profiles derived from two different methods: Likert self-reports on established questionnaires (PVQ-40/21 and BFI-44/10) and generation probabilities over value-laden responses to everyday user queries. The two profiles diverge substantially. Within-construct item consistency, often cited as evidence of stable LLM dispositions, disappears in generation probabilities. We find that established questionnaire items contain explicit lexical cues that allow models to recognize the target construct and respond in alignment-consistent, socially desirable ways, whereas realistic user queries contain far less recognizable cues. In addition, demographic persona prompts shift models' responses to human questionnaires in ways consistent with real human patterns, but no such shifts appear in the generation setting, highlighting that human questionnaires overestimate LLMs' ability to faithfully reproduce expected psychological traits when role-playing demographic personas. Overall, our study indicates that questionnaire scores alone should not be treated as evidence of LLMs' response tendencies in realistic user interactions, and supports generation-probability profiling with ecologically valid items as a complementary behavioral measure.

An Achilles heel of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their tendency to hallucinate non-factual statements. A response mixed of factual and non-factual statements poses a challenge for humans to verify and accurately base their decisions on. To combat this problem, we propose Highlighted Chain-of-Thought Prompting (HoT), a technique for prompting LLMs to generate responses with XML tags that ground facts to those provided in the question. That is, given an input question, LLMs would first re-format the question to add XML tags highlighting key facts, and then, generate a response with highlights over the facts referenced from the input. Compared to vanilla chain of thought prompting (CoT), HoT reduces the rate of hallucination and separately improves LLM accuracy consistently on over 22 tasks from arithmetic, reading comprehension, to logical reasoning. When asking humans to verify LLM responses, highlights help time-limited participants to more accurately and efficiently recognize when LLMs are correct. Yet, surprisingly, when LLMs are wrong, HoTs tend to fool users into believing that an answer is correct.

User preferences are increasingly used to personalize Large Language Model (LLM) responses, yet reliably leveraging preference signals remains under-explored. In practice, preferences can be noisy, incomplete, or even misleading, which can degrade answer quality when applied naively. Motivated by the observation that stable personality traits shape everyday preferences, we introduce PACIFIC (Preference Alignment for Choices Inference via Five-factor Identity Characterization), a personality-driven preference alignment framework that uses Big-Five (OCEAN) traits as a principled "latent" signal for organizing and reasoning over user preference history. To systematically evaluate this framework, we construct a psychometrics-based dataset containing 1,200 preference-query pairs spanning diverse domains (e.g., travel, movies, and education), with comprehensive coverage of high and low Big-Five trait directions. Extensive experiments show that trait-aligned preferences substantially improve personalized QA: given clean, trait-aligned context, LLMs reach near-ceiling accuracy (up to 99%), confirming that reasoning capability is not the bottleneck. The challenge is that real histories are mixed-trait and unlabeled. We show the true bottleneck is retrieval: a persona-aware contrastive retriever (PiRAG) raises label-free accuracy from 30% to 43% over standard semantic retrieval, without any trait annotations at inference.