LLM Prompting

We investigate whether structured reasoning interventions improve the strategic economic reasoning of large language models, and whether their effects depend on model architecture. Using Hotelling's linear city model as a diagnostic vehicle, we evaluate GPT-4.1-mini (a standard instruction-following model) and GPT-5-mini (a reasoning-optimized model) under five conditions - an unscaffolded baseline and four reasoning interventions - across eight questions spanning deductive and abductive reasoning, three prompt framings, and three repetitions per condition, yielding 720 individually judged responses. We find a statistically significant crossover interaction between scaffolding type and model architecture ($t(7) = 4.79$, $p = 0.002$, $d = 1.69$): commitment scaffolding improves the standard model ($+0.21$) while degrading the reasoning model ($-0.63$), and principled separation shows the opposite pattern ($-0.40$ vs. $+0.31$). Both crossovers are individually significant (commitment: $p = 0.040$; separation: $p = 0.002$) and hold across all eight questions with 7/8 directional consistency. Adversarial stress-testing harms both models, with $2.6\times$ greater degradation for the reasoning model ($-1.47$ vs. $-0.57$; $p = 0.038$), and the damage correlates negatively with baseline difficulty ($R^2 = 0.36$, $p = 0.014$). We further document a persistent declarative-procedural gap in which both models identify correct strategies at rates far exceeding their ability to execute them; separation fully closes this gap for the reasoning model while no intervention helps the standard model.

This study examines how prompt language and translation theory-driven prompt design influence the quality of Spanish-Chinese journalistic translations generated by GPT-5.2. A parallel corpus of four editorials from El Pais was translated under 48 experimental conditions (4 prompt types, 3 prompt languages, and 4 articles). Translation quality was assessed using BLEU and BERTScore-F1 for automated evaluation, alongside human evaluation based on the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) framework. Automated metrics identified the baseline prompt (BASE) as the best-performing condition, whereas human evaluation ranked the brief-oriented prompt (BRIEF) highest (MQM: 8.66 vs. 7.84), a reversal likely attributable to the single-reference constraint inherent in automated measures. Sub-error type analysis revealed that translation theory-driven prompts selectively reduced Awkward style errors, while Unidiomatic style errors persisted across conditions. Prompt language had a negligible impact under both evaluation paradigms. These results indicate that translation theory-driven prompts can yield measurable quality gains under expert evaluation of journalistic translations, although their pedagogical implications for language learners remain suggestive and require validation through user-based studies.

Reinforcement learning agents operating under partial observability must act on incomplete information, making them natural candidates for guidance from small language models (SLMs) that carry broad reasoning priors. Yet integrating SLM guidance into this setting has proven difficult: across all test environments, vanilla uncertainty-gated approaches achieve an overwrite rate at or near zero, meaning the SLM almost never contributes an independent action. We trace this failure to the bare egocentric prompt, which provides insufficient context for genuine reasoning, and identify it as a context problem rather than a capacity problem. We propose ASK+, which supplies the SLM with trajectory-aware context (a partially revealed map, visited positions, and action history) and structured chain-of-thought reasoning, converting it from a passive redundancy check into a more informative consultant that occasionally corrects the policy. We further establish that the predictive entropy signal used for selective querying measures action uncertainty rather than state uncertainty and remains informative in POMDPs, making uncertainty-gated assistance viable beyond fully observable settings. The stateful prompt drives substantial gains: on DoorKey, where vanilla ASK matches PPO (both 89%), ASK+ reaches 93% success; on FourRooms, success climbs from 53% to 70%; on HigherLower, accuracy reaches 73.7%, matching the SLM-only upper bound. Across all environments, Qwen3.5-2B matches or exceeds Qwen3.5-4B, confirming that prompt design and selective gating dominate the impact of model scale, enabling guidance without large models.

Rewriting inputs to improve frozen downstream models has become a common strategy in modern NLP pipelines. Prior work on incremental dialogue discourse parsing (DDP) shows that supervised clarification models can rewrite fragmentary or underspecified utterances, such as resolving ellipsis or references, to improve parsing accuracy. In this work, we revisit this idea under realistic deployment conditions, where no clarification supervision is available and the clarifier must rely on zero-shot prompting or feedback from a frozen parser. Across three Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT) datasets and multiple parsers, we find that last-utterance clarification is far less reliable than suggested by supervised settings. Parser-agnostic rewriting often introduces more regressions than repairs, as edits that enable fixes also disrupt discourse cues relied upon by the parser. A best-of-8 rewriting analysis further reveals a practical ceiling: a large fraction of errors are not repairable through input rewriting alone. A parser-aware clarifier trained with GRPO reduces regressions by up to 37% by learning conservative abstention, yet still fails to produce selectivity-aware clarifications that consistently improve parsing. Together, these findings recast clarification as a selective intervention problem. We identify rewritability prediction, deciding whether an utterance is repairable before intervention, as the key missing capability for input-side optimization of frozen discourse parsers, and a critical direction for improving agentic pipelines more broadly.

While decoder-only LLMs excel at a vast array of natural language tasks, it suffers from an asymmetric information flow induced by causal attention: later tokens are richer in contextual grounding than earlier ones. A simple and effective remedy is prompt repetition -- just appending a second copy of prompt before generation can redistribute grounding across positions and improve reasoning performance. However, full repetition of the original prompt doubles the KV cache footprint and quadruples attention cost during prefill, making it impractical for long-context settings. We propose PartRep, a selective augmentation method that appends only the most informative tokens -- rather than the entire prompt. We use token-wise negative log-likelihood (NLL) as a selection signal, motivated by the hypothesis that less predictable tokens are less recoverable from surrounding context and therefore benefit more from late-position repetition. To avoid the heavy cost of a full forward pass for scoring, we train a lightweight gate that predicts high-NLL tokens from early-layer hidden states, enabling token selection during mid-prefill via early exit. Across eight benchmarks (including MMLU, GSM8K, and RULER) and three model families (Qwen2.5, Llama3.2, Gemma4), PartRep retains most of the gains of full repetition while using only 59.4% of its KV cache and 79.0% of its prefill FLOPs.

Persona-driven generations (PDGs) have seen prolific use in research and industry applications, where a large language model (LLM) takes on a 'persona' while completing some task. While persona expressed through free-form text (like dialogue) has substantial work investigating stability or consistency, relatively, persona expressed in non-text-heavy outputs (like in multiple-choice question answering, or MCQA) is often overlooked. We work to address this gap, seeking to understand the instability of LLM PDGs in MCQA tasks. We develop three metrics investigating the performance, outcome, and question correctness stability, evaluating three distinct dimensions. Using these metrics, we find that instability varies consistently between model families and model size, and across question domains, with math/commonsense questions leading to greater instability. We also find task prompt format introduces more prediction instability than other hyperparameters, like temperature. Finally, we find that instability is related to task accuracy, and using our instability metrics, find different experimental settings that result in different best and worst personas for tasks, despite their similarity. This reveals the importance of checking hyperparameter instability in PDGs.

Large language models often produce hallucinated answers that violate prompt-level constraints. A key diagnostic question is whether these failures reflect missing knowledge, or whether the model has the relevant information but follows the wrong inference path. We study this phenomenon as inference misalignment: a mismatch between the answer supported by the prompt and the answer favored by statistically salient latent associations. We formalize this view with a latent key-task model, in which pretraining-frequency imbalance can cause a shortcut path to dominate the constraint-sensitive path and induce positive inference loss. The framework predicts two failure modes: task-retrieval bias in entity disambiguation and key-selection bias in action choice. We introduce TrapQA, a controlled diagnostic testbed with two components. ScientistQA tests disambiguation among similar scientists with supplementary factual probes, while Real-Life Constrained QA tests everyday constraint following under salient shortcuts. Our results show that hallucination can arise from biased latent inference rather than absent knowledge alone.

Large language models used in task-oriented dialogue often produce fluent but unsafe responses when backend database calls fail, return empty results, or surface mismatched information, inventing venues, confirmations, or booking details not grounded in the database. We study a lightweight prompting-based recovery approach that improves robustness without retraining or additional model calls. We compare three response strategies, including a guided recovery prompt conditioned on structured database status, across six open-weight model families (DeepSeek-R1, Gemma-2, Llama-3, Mistral, Phi-3, and Qwen-2.5) and four database conditions: empty result, wrong-domain retrieval, API error, and clean retrieval. Using fault-injected benchmarks built on two structurally different datasets, MultiWOZ 2.2 (5 domains) and SGD (20 domains), we find that naive agents hallucinate on 30.5% of failure turns on MultiWOZ and 20.9% on SGD. Our Guided-Retry strategy reduces hallucination by 50% on MultiWOZ (30.5 to 15.3%) and by 42% on SGD (20.9 to 12.2%) without retraining. However, residual hallucination remains substantial (6-37% across models), with wrong-domain failures the hardest case. Results are consistent across both datasets and all six model families, and human annotation shows substantial agreement while supporting the validity of the automatic commitment-safety metric.

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.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting improves LLM reasoning, but the source is contested: do the intermediate steps help because they carry useful semantic content, or because conditioning on more tokens buys extra computation before the model commits to an answer? We bring two lines of evidence to bear. First, in distribution: we repeatedly sample each model on the same question and pair a shorter with a longer of its own natural generations that follow the same reasoning plan, so nothing is rewritten and both traces are genuinely in-distribution. Across 25 models the extra tokens leave accuracy essentially unchanged for every independently-trained reasoner, and a blind analysis of the surplus tokens shows that what gain exists elsewhere tracks validation- and checking-content, not verbosity per se. Second, as a controlled intervention, we ask whether two traces expressing the same semantic content (the same facts, operations, and intermediate values, verified through directed acyclic graph equivalence) produce different outcomes when one is more verbose, using a dual-validator design across four targets and eight benchmarks with number-redacted completion and stratified bootstrap confidence intervals. Verbose traces do improve accuracy (25 of 32 benchmark-target cells are positive under at least one validator), but the effects are modest (typically 1-4 points) and depend on the quality of the verbose prose, not merely its length. Under maximum numerical redaction the effect is amplified (median 3.24x across four arithmetic benchmarks), and length-matched non-reasoning filler recovers none of it. Both lines converge: what matters is what the extra tokens do (the reasoning and validation content they carry), not how many there are, a picture neither a pure forward-pass-compute nor a pure semantic-content account fully explains.

A growing body of work suggests that the reasoning capabilities of large language models are largely latent in their base form, with post-training primarily amplifying rather than introducing them. However, this evidence comes mainly from mathematical and coding benchmarks, leaving the boundary conditions of that claim largely unexplored, namely which cognitive tasks can be recovered through elicitation and where that recovery fails. To investigate this, we introduce NeuReasoner, a theory-grounded elicitation instrument. At each step, an orchestrator pairs a Neuro Lens, inspired by functional specificity, with a Cognitive Lens, drawn from the Erotetic Theory of Reasoning, and integrates their outputs through internal modularization of a single model, without external tools. We evaluate NeuReasoner on CogBench, a suite of behavioral tasks from cognitive psychology, alongside standard mathematical and coding benchmarks, measuring both its improvement over vanilla inference and its ability to match a model's post-trained thinking mode. At sufficient scale, NeuReasoner matches or exceeds thinking-mode baselines on arithmetic reasoning, code generation, Bayesian reasoning, and reward learning; these gains persist against self-consistency and iterative-refinement baselines matched to NeuReasoner's per-decision call budget. Using NeuReasoner allows us to find clear boundaries: risk-taking and decision making under uncertainty remains hard to recover through elicitation alone, and model scale interacts with elicitation in both directions: widening its advantage on some cognitive signatures while erasing it on others. Overall, through NeuReasoner as a modular, interpretable, theory-grounded elicitation instrument, we empirically map where reasoning elicitation succeeds and fails, beyond the mathematical and coding benchmarks where prior claims have rested.

Data fusion, also known as truth discovery, is a data integration problem that aims to determine the correct value or set of values for each attribute of an object when presented with potentially conflicting values from multiple sources. Data fusion tasks belong to two main categories: single-truth scenarios, where each attribute has only one correct value, and multi-truth scenarios, where multiple values can be valid simultaneously. This paper investigates the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in data fusion tasks for tabular data. Various prompting strategies, encompassing both single-truth and multi-truth scenarios, are investigated empirically. Domain-dependent, domain-independent, zero-shot and one-shot prompts are evaluated on three different benchmark datasets. Experimental results demonstrate that LLM-based approaches outperform traditional unsupervised truth discovery methods, such as DART and LTM, across all datasets. The codebase of this study has been made publicly available on GitHub.

In recent times, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for legal case judgement summarization. Most prior works have tried traditional extractive and abstractive summarization of case judgements. However, hybrid or extractive-abstractive techniques have not been explored much. In this work, we propose a novel tree-of-thoughts inspired extractive-abstractive summarization approach for legal judgement summarization. We conduct experiments using two popular LLMs, DeepSeek and LLama, and compare among extractive, abstractive and extractive-abstractive summarization. Our experiments show that the proposed extractive-abstractive prompt provides better summaries compared to other types of LLM prompts.

While the validity of LLMs' use in the legal context remains subject to ethical and legal debate, legal professionals are already experimenting with personal LLMs, if only for translation and reformulation. However, even such a seemingly innocuous use can introduce biases through case processing speed if LLM assistants selectively refuse assistance on certain topics. To better anticipate such biases, we investigate several modern small LLMs that are most likely to be used as on-device assistants, to assess the impact of overrefusal on legal prompts. Surprisingly, we find that authority-style prefixes (you are acting as an assistant of the national supreme court'', [...] defense lawyer'') systematically increase refusal rates by 2--20x over the no-prefix baseline, while a known role-play jailbreak prefix shows mixed effects, sharply increasing refusals in some models and barely shifting them in others. The finding suggests that small on-prem deployable LLMs are unstable under contextual framings that a real institutional user might naturally introduce, and further investigation is essential to minimize opportunities for bias.

Parametric knowledge in Large Language Models is not equally accessible across languages. As a result, standard inference techniques often struggle to surface localized facts, leading to failures in cross-lingual knowledge transfer and consistency. In this work, we investigate techniques for accessing hidden factual knowledge by exploring cross-lingual prompting strategies. We identify four inherent dimensions of cross-lingual exploration that directly govern parametric knowledge retrieval and evaluate them on multilingual factual benchmarks covering 17 typologically diverse languages. Our results demonstrate that cross-lingual exploration significantly improves knowledge transfer and factual recall, representing a more efficient compute Pareto frontier than native-language scaling. Furthermore, we observe corresponding improvements in cross-lingual consistency, exceeding what can be explained by accuracy gains alone. Overall, our work establishes multilingual prompt exploration as a highly effective inference-time strategy for unlocking latent parametric knowledge.

Prompt-based interaction has become a dominant paradigm for using large language models (LLMs), where multiple candidate prompts are evaluated and the top-ranked one is selected for downstream use. This workflow implicitly assumes that prompt rankings are stable under minor variations in evaluation conditions. In this paper, we systematically study prompt ranking stability under common sources of variability, including random seeds and limited evaluation subsets. Across three open-weight LLMs and two benchmark tasks, we find that while overall rank correlations are often moderate to high, the identity of the top-performing prompt frequently changes, leading to unreliable selection decisions. To address this issue, we propose a simple stability-aware selection strategy based on a lower confidence bound, which accounts for both performance and variance. Our results show that this approach improves robustness in unstable settings while remaining competitive in more stable regimes. These findings highlight the importance of accounting for evaluation uncertainty in prompt selection and LLM benchmarking.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently portrayed as general-purpose solvers capable of solving arbitrary tasks. We argue that this view overlooks a fundamental constraint: language is a compressed and capacity-limited interface for conveying task information. Modelling User--System interaction as a bilevel \emph{cheap-talk} game, we analyse how latent tasks are encoded into prompts and reinterpreted under alignment and safety constraints. We introduce a conceptual decomposition separating task inference from execution and derive PAC-Bayes bounds that distinguish finite-sample estimation error from irreducible structural limitations. Our first main result establishes an \emph{expressivity floor}: language acts as a capacity-limited communication channel, and whenever the informational complexity of a task family exceeds the capacity of that channel, distinct tasks become unavoidably indistinguishable to the Solver, inducing a strictly positive error floor that cannot be eliminated by additional data, optimisation, or model scaling alone. We then establish an \emph{objective-misalignment floor}: when alignment constraints restrict the admissible output set, the User-ideal distribution may lie outside the feasible class, inducing an irreducible distortion. Together, these results yield a formal negative conclusion: prompt-conditioned LLMs are not universal problem solvers through prompting alone, as there exist task families for which correct behaviour is provably unattainable even in the infinite-data regime. More broadly, our analysis shows the limits of prompt-based generalisation arise from information-constrained communication and alignment-constrained objectives. This suggests that interfaces beyond natural language, including multimodal observations and, external memory, may reduce the inherent LLM limitations by increasing the task-relevant information available to the System.

Domain-specific languages (DSLs) are widely used for managing operating system security policies, yet manually authoring rules in such languages demands high expertise and is error-prone. This paper formalises the task of automatic DSL code generation from natural language descriptions - Text2DSL - as a distinct problem class, separate from Text-to-SQL and general-purpose code generation. We introduce the PolkitBench dataset comprising 4,204 verified natural-language-to-Polkit-rule pairs, each validated through a three-level AST-based pipeline. Controlled prompt experiments on two MoE models of different scale and provenance - GigaChat-10B-A1.8B (1.8B active parameters) and Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B (3B active) - demonstrate the critical role of structured context (BNF grammar, API specification, permitted identifier vocabulary) for LLM-based DSL code generation. Across both models, supplying context raises syntactic validity to 98.6-99.4%, structural validity by +9.7 to +35.5 pp, and the CodeBLEU score by +60% to +95%. The consistency of the effect across models of different scale and provenance indicates that, for the Text2DSL class of problems, injecting a formal target-language specification into the prompt context is a robust enabling factor for high-quality generation without model fine-tuning.

We extend our prior work on Text2DSL automatic generation of domain-specific language (DSL) code from natural language descriptions along two complementary axes. First, we replace prompt-only synthetic generation with context-aware distillation, in which a teacher large language model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash) operates under an explicitly defined structured context comprising a BNF grammar, an API specification, and a closed identifier vocabulary; the resulting corpus is verified by a two-tier pipeline combining AST validation through esprima and runtime acceptance through the production polkitd daemon and the pkcheck client. This scales the verified PolkitBench corpus from 4,204 to 10,073 natural-language-to-Polkit-rule pairs at 100.0% AST validity and 99.7% runtime pass rate. Second, we conduct the per-component factorial ablation of structured context that was identified as future work in the precursor study: eight conditions C0-C7 are evaluated on GigaChat-10B-A1.8B with the new corpus. Three findings emerge. (i) The new harder corpus collapses the baseline mode (Syntax Valid 97.6% -> 58.5%, Combined Score 0.482 -> 0.252), whereas the context-enhanced mode degrades only marginally (Syntax 98.6% -> 97.4%, Combined 0.801 -> 0.750), confirming that structured context is not a cosmetic improvement but a load-bearing mechanism. (ii) The best absolute condition is the full context C7 across all metrics, while the strongest partial conditions (C5 = BNF + Vocabulary, C6 = API + Vocabulary) both contain the vocabulary. (iii) A Shapley-style decomposition assigns the largest semantic-quality effect to the vocabulary (Combined +0.198), the largest structural-validity effects to API (+24.7 pp) and BNF (+22.3 pp).

Large language models (LLMs) offer a natural-language interface for interpreting Internet of Things (IoT) sensor data in smart environments; however, cloud deployment introduces latency, privacy, and connectivity concerns. Local LLMs can reduce these limitations, but compact edge-deployable models often show weaker numerical reasoning when raw sensor readings are provided directly. This paper investigates whether prompt-side preprocessing can improve the accuracy-latency trade-off of local LLMs for environmental monitoring. We propose a structured prompt construction framework that transforms raw air-quality and thermal-comfort measurements into progressively enriched textual representations: raw sensor values, threshold-aware descriptions, and compact environmental summary flags. The approach is evaluated using indoor Raspberry Pi/BME680 datasets from Tampere University and outdoor air-quality datasets from Helsinki, Katowice, and Warsaw. We construct a binary LLM query dataset covering air quality, thermal comfort, and joint environmental conditions, and evaluate five local and five cloud LLMs across three prompt variants and two inference modes, with and without chain-of-thought prompting. Results show that prompt enrichment substantially improves local-model accuracy. In No-CoT mode, local accuracy increases from 50.9% to 81.7% indoors and from 63.7% to 89.3% outdoors from the raw to the most enriched prompt. Local No-CoT inference is the fastest configuration, with mean latency close to 0.22 s, while CoT substantially increases inference time. These findings suggest that lightweight prompt-side preprocessing can narrow the local--cloud performance gap and support low-latency IoT analytics in smart environments.

Large language models (LLMs) often encounter conflicting prompts, although current instruction following benchmarks assess those meta-instructions in isolation, limiting the insights about how models process conflicting instructions. We introduce a framework \textit{PRIME}(\textit{Prompt Resolution under Incompatible Meta-Instructions Evaluation}) to analyze behavior of LLMs when provided with conflicting instructions. \textit{PRIME} purposefully produces calibrated conflicts across response length, output format, and reasoning; classifying model responses with a deterministic behavioral taxonomy. We are evaluating five instruction tuned open weight LLMs in two distinct settings, balanced and naturally distributed. The conclusion we reach upon analysis is that conflict type is more significant in affecting behavior than model scale, and various failure modes across different categories of conflict. Our findings emphasize the value of developing conflict awareness and suggest ability of LLM to follow instructions cannot be assessed through isolated constraints alone.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in supporting engineering design tasks, including computer-aided design (CAD) automation. However, most existing LLM-based 3D CAD generation approaches primarily focus on geometric precision and instruction-following performance, often overlooking the fundamental aspect of creative design exploration. This study presents a TRIZ-inspired text-to-CAD framework that leverages LLMs to generate high-quality, editable CAD models while systematically exploring creative design alternatives. The framework integrates the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ)-embedding deep human insights from extensive patent records-into LLM prompting strategies, enabling autonomous generation of innovative CAD variants that address technical contradictions. Through a comprehensive three-stage pipeline of design generation, enhancement, and optimization, the framework produces structurally diverse CAD models from well-crafted prompts. The present study implements and evaluates the first two stages, while positioning the design optimization stage as future work. A product design case study (chair) demonstrates that the TRIZ-inspired text-to-CAD framework generates multiple creative design alternatives by systematically applying TRIZ inventive principles such as segmentation, anti-weight, dynamics, and composite materials, achieving 4.0-14.7% mass reduction across all enhanced designs while maintaining structural integrity. The key findings suggest that integrating systematic innovation methodologies with LLM-based 3D CAD generation bridges the gap between precision-focused synthesis and creativity-focused exploration, advancing toward autonomous design systems where AI makes design decisions independently, supporting human decision-making in human-AI collaborative design for engineering applications.

Document-grounded assistants built on large language models are increasingly used in high-stakes, knowledge-intensive work. Their usefulness, however, may depend on how evidence is allocated before generation. We investigate such a claim by comparing two grounding architectures: (a) retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that retrieves a few relevant passages, and (b) long-context prompting, which loads the whole document collection in context. We view these as two regimes of "epistemic access" on an accuracy--cost frontier. We use "epistemic accuracy" to capture model correctness that depends on having the right evidence. We posit that broader access (via long context) can increase it, but with a "token tax" (i.e., a substantial increase in cost due to larger input token consumption). We probe this framing with a case study in manufacturing safety training. Using an expert-validated benchmark, we evaluate 972 answers across three machines, two small language models, and three retrieval/in-context prompting approaches. Long-context prompting achieved the highest correctness (73.1% vs. 65.4% for semantic RAG), but at 26 times the per-query token cost. We interpret this gap as the token tax of broader evidentiary access. We carefully discuss the implications of our findings for resource-constrained organizations.

As academic submissions grow, the traditional peer review process struggles to keep up, raising concerns about quality and fairness. A trend of using large language models (LLMs) for assistance has emerged. In this work, we take a critical step toward improving the quality of LLM-generated reviews. We propose the PeerCheck framework, which investigates LLM-human review differences (RQ1) and explores methods to improve LLM-generated review quality (RQ2). We first analyzed the human-written reviews with reviews generated by various LLMs and found that LLMs and humans focus on different terms, e.g., LLMs prioritize theory while humans emphasize methodology and experiments. We further adopt prompt engineering, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and utilize retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to enhance the LLM-generated reviews towards human-level quality. We find CoT significantly improves the quality of LLM reviews, while we discover an unexpected "RAG paradox," i.e., experiments with RAG produce different results for various LLMs and, in some cases, even reduce review quality. Our comprehensive analysis of LLM-generated academic reviews illustrates both possibilities and limitations, contributing to a more effective, human-aligned review system. Our dataset is available on https://github.com/TrustAIRLab/PeerCheck.

Malware analysts often inspect compiled binaries through decompiled pseudo-C, when source code is unavailable. Recent work suggests that large language models (LLMs) can assist this process by classifying decompiled code as benign or malicious, but existing pipelines typically rely on a single decompiler view. We argue that this assumption is fragile: decompilers are lossy heuristic tools, and different decompilers can expose different artefacts of the same binary. We curate a benchmark of benign utilities and malicious programs spanning a range of threat behaviors. Each sample is compiled and decompiled with both Ghidra and RetDec, yielding matched pseudo-C views. Across a range of LLMs from major model families, we find that providing both decompiler views improves malicious-class F1, mainly by increasing recall on malicious samples. Agreement analyses further show that Ghidra and RetDec make partially different errors, supporting the view that decompiler outputs provide complementary evidence. Our results suggest that multi-decompiler prompting is a simple, training-free way to improve LLM-based malware triage in practical settings.

We develop a text-to-SQL (structured query language) system based on large language models (LLMs) using in-context learning and apply it to the Automatic Learning for the Rapid Classification of Events (ALeRCE) astronomical database. ALeRCE is a community broker for the Zwicky Transient Facility and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory. The system enables users to query the database in natural language (NL) and generates executable SQL queries. To develop and evaluate the system, we constructed a dataset of 110 NL/SQL pairs. We propose a step-by-step generation framework comprising four modules: schema linking, query classification, prompt decomposition, and self-correction. The performance of thirteen LLMs is evaluated using in-context learning and prompt engineering techniques. Text-to-SQL performance is assessed using the perfect-match (PM) rate for row identifiers (e.g., object identifiers) and column identifiers (i.e., column names). The proposed step-by-step framework consistently outperforms a direct-inference baseline, while the self-correction module consistently reduces execution errors. For Claude Opus 4.6, PM performance on row (column) identifiers is high for simple queries, reaching 0.97 (0.94), and decreases with query complexity to 0.44 (0.72) for medium queries and 0.59 (0.49) for hard queries. Among the thirteen evaluated models, the best-performing LLMs for the text-to-SQL task are Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 3 Flash, and GPT-5.2-Codex.

People make decisions differently in strategic interactions. Some update beliefs like a Bayesian; others exhibit biases like motivated reasoning. Although creators of large language models use simulated humans for safety evaluations and training, they often fail to cover this breadth of human behavior. We argue that cognitive science and economics provide a convenient tool for doing so, making use of mathematical models of human decision-making. We propose an approach that we call Equation-to-Behavior Prompting for guiding large language models to match cognitive models, and evaluate this approach on persuasion games based on legal decision-making. We find that large models can approximate equation-based specifications -- Bayesian updating, affine distortion, motivated updating, and Grether's $α$-$β$ model -- using prompting, but small models fail to do so. However, training small models with reinforcement learning to adhere to mathematical rules, Equation-to-Behavior RL, reduces belief error by 26.5% in out-of-distribution parameterizations. We show that these simulations can help create diverse training environments; training small models to consider different kinds of decision-makers improves average belief change by 2.5%--12% over Bayesian-only training, even when persuading GPT-5-mini. Our work could improve human simulations for training and evaluation in increasingly realistic settings, and could also enable novel research into more complicated mathematical models of human decision-making.

Two recent studies \citep{jones2026llms, zeng2026lvlms} reach apparently contradictory conclusions about whether large vision-language models (LVLMs) can coordinate similarly to humans on efficient referring expressions. We control for task differences between the studies while directly comparing their prompting styles. We replicate the finding that models can coordinate efficient referring expressions when \textit{explicitly} prompted to do so, suggesting that other task differences are not responsible for divergent results. However, we also find that the same models fail to infer the need for communicative efficiency from a more \textit{implicit} prompt, highlighting critical differences between how humans and AI systems communicate.

While Large Language Model (LLM) based Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) enables seamless multilingual use, models often misidentify the output language, compromising transcription fidelity and downstream application quality. To preserve flexibility and code-switching capabilities, we propose a soft prompting approach that hints at potential spoken languages without strictly constraining the output. We formally define this challenge as a lack of language adherence, introduce a novel metric to quantify violations, and evaluate three mitigation strategies: (1) zero-shot prompting for robust guidance under uncertainty, (2) supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to improve prompt adherence, and (3) Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning to enforce adherence during decoding. We present a comparative analysis of these methods across multiple languages, evaluating effectiveness in reducing the language violation while maintaining overall ASR performance. Finally, we discuss trade-offs to guide strategy selection under various compute constraints.

Prompting has become the primary interface between humans and generative AI, yet many natural language prompts remain fragile: roles, goals, constraints, and expected outputs are often buried in prose or left implicit. In agentic and software development workflows, a misread at the first handoff can propagate through every step, since a significant portion of agent failures stem from context ambiguities rather than model limitations. This paper introduces PromptMN, a pseudo-prompting domain-specific language that annotates natural language with compact, %-prefixed typed directives covering roles, goals, requirements, priorities, constraints, plans, inputs, and outputs. Semantic resolution lets authors write in any order while the model interprets directives by function. PromptMN sits between informal prompting and programming-style pseudocode: structured enough to be inspectable and reusable, yet lightweight enough for analysts, managers, developers, and stakeholders across the software development lifecycle (SDLC). PromptMN also pairs with reverse prompt engineering. Asking a model to restate a desired outcome as PromptMN lets users inspect the inferred roles, goals, constraints, and missing assumptions before acting, reducing repair cycles and yielding a reusable artifact for aligning people and AI tools. PromptMN's feasibility is evaluated across several frontier models, including Claude Fable 5, Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.5. The models correctly resolved PromptMN instructions, including complex structures such as repetition, conditionals, methods, and a prime-checking task, without fine-tuning. The same vocabulary applies across new codebases, maintenance, and redesign in the SDLC scenarios presented. While large-scale validation remains future work, these early results suggest PromptMN is a practical step toward clearer, more reviewable human-to-AI interaction.