Large Language Model Performance

Modeling student misconceptions in a realistic manner is critical for AI in education. In this work, we examine how large language models (LLMs) reason about misconceptions when generating distractor answers for multiple-choice questions (MCQs), a task that requires producing answers that are incorrect, yet plausible. We introduce a taxonomy over reasoning strategies for distractor generation that is grounded in learning-science literature and empirical observation, which we apply to LLM-generated reasoning traces across math and science MCQs. On the math dataset, we find that models follow a misconception-based process with potentially high diagnostic value: they recover the correct solution, articulate student errors, simulate them, and select plausible candidates. On the science dataset, on the other hand, they tend to follow a less robust approach based on semantic similarity to the correct answer. We find the most frequent failure modes to be that the model is unable to generate a correct solution or that it discards plausible distractor candidates when performing selection. Providing the correct solution in the prompt yields a relative improvement of 6.4% in alignment with human-authored distractors, highlighting the critical role of anchoring distractor generation to the correct solution. Together, our findings offer an interpretable view of how LLMs model incorrect student reasoning.

Empathy is central to human connection, yet people often struggle to express it effectively. In blinded evaluations, large language models (LLMs) generate responses that are often judged more empathic than human-written ones. Yet when a response is attributed to AI, recipients feel less heard than when comparable responses are attributed to a human. We built a conversation platform in which participants are asked to offer empathic support to an LLM expressing realistic troubles and conducted a randomized experiment collecting 33,938 messages spanning 2,904 text-based conversations between 968 participants and their LLM conversational partners. We find participants report feeling empathy but systematically fail to express it, but an LLM coaching intervention offering personalized feedback on effective empathic communication significantly boosts it without homogenizing participants' responses. Moreover, we derive a data-driven taxonomy of idiomatic empathic expressions in naturalistic dialogues across personal and workplace trouble scenarios. These results advance the scientific understanding of how empathy is expressed and demonstrate a scalable, AI-based intervention for scaffolding and cultivating it.

While post-training has successfully improved large language models (LLMs) across a variety of domains, these gains heavily rely on human-labeled data or external verifiers. Existing data has already been exploited, and new data is expensive to collect. Moreover, true intelligence goes far beyond verifiable tasks. Therefore, we need self-improvement frameworks that are less dependent on external signals and more broadly applicable to both verifiable and non-verifiable domains. We propose Mutual Information Preference Optimization (MIPO), a contrastive data augmentation method that constructs preference pairs by generating a positive response conditioning on the correct prompt, and a negative response by conditioning on a random, unrelated prompt. We show that using Direct Preference Optimization to learn from this paired data maximizes pointwise mutual information under the base LLM between prompts and model responses. Experiments with with 1-7B parameter Llama and Qwen instruct models show that MIPO achieves 3-16% gains (and 51% increase for Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct) on personalization compared to prompting baselines. Surprisingly, MIPO can also be useful in verifiable domains, such as math and multiple-choice question answering, yielding 1-20% gains without any additional data or external supervision. These results suggest a promising direction for self-improvement using intrinsic signals derived from contrastive data pairs.

Standard reranking evaluations study how a reranker orders candidates returned by an upstream retriever. This setup couples ranking behavior with retrieval quality, so differences in output cannot be attributed to the ranking policy alone. We introduce a controlled diagnostic for reranking that uses Multi-News clusters as fixed evidence pools. We limit each pool to eight documents and pass identical inputs to all rankers. Within this setup, BM25 and MMR serve as interpretable reference points for lexical matching and diversity optimization. Across 345 clusters, we find that redundancy patterns vary by model: one LLM implicitly diversifies at larger selection budgets, while another increases redundancy. In contrast, LLMs underperform on lexical coverage at small selection budgets. As a result, LLM rankings diverge substantially from both baselines rather than consistently approximating either strategy. By reducing retrieval variance through fixed pools, we interpret these differences more directly as differences in ranking policy. This diagnostic is model agnostic and can be applied to any ranker, including open source systems and proprietary APIs. Our code and processed data for both the Multi-News diagnostic and the complementary TREC-DL evaluation are publicly available at https://github.com/barisarat/llm_reranker_multinews.git.

When humans and large language models (LLMs) process the same text, activations in the LLMs correlate with brain activity measured, e.g., with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Moreover, it has been shown that, as the training of an LLM progresses, the performance in predicting brain activity from its internal activations improves more in the left hemisphere than in the right one. The aim of the present work is to understand which kind of competence acquired by the LLMs underlies the emergence of this left-right asymmetry. Using the OLMo-2 7B language model at various training checkpoints and fMRI data from English participants, we compare the evolution of the left-right asymmetry in the correlation between brain activity and model predictions alongside performance on several benchmarks. We observe that the asymmetry co-emerges with the formal linguistic abilities of the LLM. These abilities are demonstrated in two ways: by the model's capacity to assign a higher probability to an acceptable sentence than to a grammatically unacceptable one within a minimal contrasting pair, and by its ability to produce well-formed text. By contrast, the left-right asymmetry does not align with the performance on arithmetic or Dyck language tasks; nor with text-based tasks involving world knowledge and reasoning. We generalize these results to another family of LLMs (Pythia) and two other languages, French and Chinese. Our observations indicate that the left-right asymmetry in brain predictivity matches the progress in formal linguistic competence.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit failure modes on seemingly trivial tasks. We propose a formalisation of LLM interaction using a deterministic multi-tape Turing machine, where each tape represents a distinct component: input characters, tokens, vocabulary, model parameters, activations, probability distributions, and output text. The model enables precise localisation of failure modes to specific pipeline stages, revealing, e.g., how tokenisation obscures character-level structure needed for counting tasks. The model clarifies why techniques like chain-of-thought prompting help, by externalising computation on the output tape, while also revealing their fundamental limitations. This approach provides a rigorous, falsifiable alternative to geometric metaphors and complements empirical scaling laws with principled error analysis.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive proficiency in basic arithmetic, rivaling human-level performance on standard numerical tasks. However, little attention has been given to how these models perform when numerical expressions deviate from the prevailing conventions present in their training corpora. In this work, we investigate numerical reasoning across a wide range of numeral scripts and formats. We show that LLM accuracy drops substantially when numerical inputs are rendered in underrepresented scripts or formats, despite the underlying mathematical reasoning being identical. We further demonstrate that targeted prompting strategies, such as few-shot prompting and explicit numeral mapping, can greatly narrow this gap. Our findings highlight an overlooked challenge in multilingual numerical reasoning and provide actionable insights for working with LLMs to reliably interpret, manipulate, and generate numbers across diverse numeral scripts and formatting styles.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly operate in high-stakes settings where demographic attributes such as race and ethnicity may be explicitly stated or implicitly suggested through textual cues. However, existing studies primarily document outcome-level disparities, offering limited insight into internal mechanisms underlying these effects. We present a mechanistic study of how race and ethnicity cues are represented and operationalized within LLMs. Using two publicly available datasets spanning toxicity-related generation and clinical narrative understanding tasks, we analyze three open-source models with a reproducible interpretability pipeline combining probing, neuron-level attribution, and targeted intervention. We find that sensitivity to demographic cues is distributed across internal units and varies substantially across models. These units often align with entangled semantic facets, including explicit group labels, geography, language, culture, and associations related to stereotypes. Interventions on selected units can change some biased prediction patterns, but substantial residual effects remain, suggesting that effective mitigation requires understanding distributed, task-specific mechanisms rather than manipulating a small set of identified neurons alone. Code: https://github.com/LARK-NLP-Lab/LLM-Bias-Interpretability.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents that invoke external tools through structured function calls. While recent work reports strong tool-calling performance under standard English-centric evaluations, the robustness of tool calling under multilingual user interactions remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce MLCL, a diagnostic benchmark, and conduct a systematic evaluation of multilingual tool calling across Chinese, Hindi, and the low-resource language Igbo. Through fine-grained error analysis, we show that many failures occur despite correct intent understanding and tool selection. We identify parameter value language mismatch as a dominant failure mode, where models generate semantically appropriate parameter values in the user's language, violating language-invariant execution conventions. We further evaluate several inference-time system strategies and find that while these strategies substantially reduce language-induced execution errors, none of them can fully recover English-level performance.

Earlier research has shown that metaphors influence human decision-making, raising the question of whether metaphors also influence large language models (LLMs)' reasoning pathways, given that their training data contain a large number of metaphors. In this work, we investigate the problem in the scope of the emergent misalignment problem, where LLMs can generalize patterns learned from misaligned content in one domain to another domain. We find strong evidence that metaphors in training data contribute to cross-domain misalignment in LLMs' reasoning outputs. With metaphor-based interventions during continued pre-training and fine-tuning for inducing misalignment, models exhibit significantly different degrees of emergent cross-domain misalignment. We also observe similar effects in re-alignment settings. As we further investigate this phenomenon, we find that metaphors are linked to the activation of latent features in large reasoning models. By monitoring these latent features, we design a detector that predicts misaligned content with high accuracy.

Competitive programming problems are increasingly used to evaluate the coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) due to their complexity and ease of verification. Yet, current coding benchmarks face limitations such as a lack of exceptionally challenging problems, insufficient test case coverage, and reliance on online platform APIs that limit accessibility. To address these issues, we introduce LiveOIBench, a large-scale competitive programming benchmark featuring 403 expert-curated problems, averaging 60 official test cases each, drawn from 72 contests across 14 Informatics Olympiads held between 2023 and 2025. LiveOIBench has four key features: (1) expert-designed tasks with detailed subtask rubrics and extensive test cases; (2) direct comparison to elite human contestants; (3) continuous updates to reduce contamination risk; and (4) a fully offline, reproducible evaluation system. Benchmarking 34 popular general-purpose and reasoning LLMs, we find that GPT-5 achieves an 81.76th percentile, still falling short of top human contestants, while among the open-weight models, GPT-OSS-120B reaches only the 60th percentile. Reasoning-trace analyses indicate that robust reasoning models prioritize precise problem analysis over excessive exploration. Finally, analyses across release dates, task familiarity, and code similarity find minimal evidence of data contamination in our benchmark. Our leaderboard, code, and data are available at: https://liveoibench.github.io/.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior in business, economics, and the social sciences, offering a low-cost complement to laboratory experiments, field studies, and surveys. This paper evaluates how well LLMs replicate human behavior in operations management. Using nine published behavioral-operations experiments, we assess LLM performance along two dimensions: whether LLM-generated data reproduce the original hypothesis-test outcomes, and whether their full response distributions align with human data, measured by Wasserstein distance. We find that LLMs often replicate hypothesis-level effects, suggesting that they can capture salient decision biases and behavioral regularities. However, their response distributions frequently diverge from human data, even for strong proprietary models, with dispersion mismatch playing an important role. We also examine two lightweight mitigation strategies: chain-of-thought prompting and hyperparameter tuning. Both can reduce distributional misalignment, and appropriate tuning can sometimes allow smaller or open-source models to match or outperform larger proprietary systems.

Current answering paradigms for Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often fail to account for the fact that some questions may lie beyond the model's operational capability boundary, leading to long but unproductive reasoning. In this paper, we study whether LRMs expose early signals predictive of such cases, and whether these signals can be used to mitigate unproductive reasoning. In black-box settings, we find that reasoning expressions contain failure-predictive signals. In white-box settings, we show that the hidden states of the last input token contain information that is predictive of whether a question will not be solved correctly under our evaluation setup. Building on these observations, we propose two test-time monitoring strategies: reasoning expression monitoring and hidden states monitoring, that reduce token usage by 62.7-93.6%, substantially improving efficiency and reliability while largely preserving accuracy.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant advancements in performance, various jailbreak attacks have posed growing safety and ethical risks. Malicious users often exploit adversarial context to deceive LLMs, prompting them to generate responses to harmful queries. In this study, we propose a new defense mechanism called Context Filtering, an input pre-processing method designed to filter out untrustworthy and unreliable context while identifying the primary prompts containing the real user intent to uncover concealed malicious intent. Given that enhancing the safety of LLMs often compromises their helpfulness, potentially affecting the experience of benign users, our method aims to improve the safety of the LLMs while preserving their original performance. We evaluate the effectiveness of our model in defending against jailbreak attacks through comparative analysis, comparing our approach with state-of-the-art defense mechanisms against six different attacks and assessing the helpfulness of LLMs under these defenses. Our model demonstrates its ability to reduce the Attack Success Rates of jailbreak attacks by up to 92% while maintaining the original LLMs' performance, achieving state-of-the-art Safety and Helpfulness balance. Notably, Context Filtering is a plug-and-play method that can be applied to all LLMs, including both white-box and black-box models, to enhance their safety without requiring any fine-tuning of the models themselves. Our model is available for research purposes.

Prior clinical psychology research shows that Western individuals with depression tend to report psychological symptoms, while Eastern individuals report somatic ones. We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs), which are increasingly used in mental health, reproduce these cultural patterns by prompting them with Western or Eastern personas. Results show that LLMs largely fail to replicate the patterns when prompted in English, though prompting in major Eastern languages (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, and Hindi) improves alignment in several configurations. Our analysis pinpoints two key reasons for this failure: the models' low sensitivity to cultural personas and a strong, culturally invariant symptom hierarchy that overrides cultural cues. These findings reveal that while prompt language is important, current general-purpose LLMs lack the robust, culture-aware capabilities essential for safe and effective mental health applications.

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

As AI-generated content increasingly populates the web, generative AI models are at growing risk of being trained on their own outputs, a process known as AI autophagy. This feedback loop has been shown to induce model collapse, typically characterized by a loss of diversity in generated content. However, existing work offers a limited understanding of this phenomenon and relies on mitigation strategies that assume access to human-authored data. In this paper, we conduct extensive simulations across multiple datasets and LLMs to address key gaps in the study of model collapse. First, we introduce model-intrinsic measures based on next-token probability distributions, showing that model collapse corresponds to an increasing concentration of probability mass on a small set of tokens. Second, we demonstrate that model collapse is also associated with a loss of common sense, as measured by a decline in commonsense inference accuracy. Third, we identify perplexity (a measure of model "surprise") as a key driver of collapse: fine-tuning on the least "surprising" documents leads to more severe degeneration. Building on this insight, we propose a perplexity-based filtering strategy that prioritizes high-surprise documents during fine-tuning. Unlike existing approaches, our method does not require distinguishing between human-authored and AI-generated content. Across datasets and LLM families, this strategy consistently mitigates model collapse, achieving performance comparable to, and in some cases better than, human-data baselines, while substantially reducing the concentration of next-token probabilities. Overall, our results provide a unified, model-centric understanding of model collapse and suggest practical, scalable strategies for training generative AI systems in increasingly synthetic environments.

Large language models are being widely used across industries to generate text that contributes directly to key performance metrics, such as medication adherence in patient messaging and conversion rates in content generation. Pretrained models, however, often fall short when it comes to aligning with human preferences or optimizing for business objectives. As a result, fine-tuning with good-quality labeled data is essential to guide models to generate content that achieves better results. Controlled experiments, like A/B tests, can provide such data, but they are often expensive and come with significant engineering, logistical, and ethical challenges. Meanwhile, companies have access to a vast amount of historical (observational) data that remains underutilized. In this work, we study the challenges and opportunities of fine-tuning LLMs using observational data. We show that while observational outcomes can provide valuable supervision, directly fine-tuning models on such data can lead them to learn spurious correlations. We present empirical evidence of this issue using various real-world datasets and propose DeconfoundLM, a method that explicitly removes the effect of known confounders from reward signals. In simulation experiments, DeconfoundLM more accurately recovers causal relationships and mitigates failure modes of methods that assume counterfactual invariance, achieving over 16% higher objective score than ODIN and other baselines, when entangled confounding is present. Please refer to the project page for code and related resources.