arXiv subjects

Arshia Gharagozlou

Publications and source records attributed to Arshia Gharagozlou.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Same Game, Different Story: A Minimal Conservative Strategic Robustness Benchmark for Large Language Model Agents

Large language model agents are increasingly deployed in settings where the value of an action depends on what other agents do. This creates a strategic reliability problem: the same game may be described as a business negotiation, a friendly compromise, a diplomatic exchange, or an abstract payoff matrix, and the model may choose different actions even when the incentives are unchanged. This paper introduces \emph{Same Game, Different Story}, a benchmark for strategic robustness: invariance of model-induced action distributions under payoff-preserving language changes. The empirical analysis uses a deliberately narrow, literature-calibrated comparison from Lor\`e and Heydari's peer-reviewed study: business framing versus friend-sharing framing across GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and LLaMa-2 in four social-dilemma games, with 300 initializations per retained model-game-context cell. The retained design comprises 24 of the source study's 60 cells, representing 7,200 decisions. Because trial-level files were not available from the article, the analysis is presented as a secondary calibration based on reconstructed published rates, not as new model runs. As a conservative sensitivity analysis, effect magnitudes are attenuated by 30\% toward the null: action shifts are multiplied by 0.70, and non-robustness, defined as one minus the robustness score, is multiplied by 0.70. Under this attenuation, pooled strategic robustness is 0.783 with a 95\% bootstrap interval from 0.774 to 0.790, and friend-sharing framing raises cooperation by 0.307 with a 95\% bootstrap interval from 0.297 to 0.316 relative to business framing. The analysis supports the narrower claim that social-relational framing can change strategic choices even when incentives are held fixed, without extending the analysis to a broader suite of contextual or cross-benchmark comparisons.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

Do Large Language Model Voters Strategize? An Oracle-Based Benchmark for Manipulation under Voting Rules

Strategic voting is a canonical failure mode for collective choice: a voter may obtain a more preferred outcome by reporting a ballot that differs from its true preferences. This paper introduces an oracle-based benchmark for testing whether large language model (LLM) voters can discover and execute such manipulations. Each instance gives an LLM voter a true preference ranking, the other voters' ballots, a deterministic voting rule, and a prompt condition. An exact oracle enumerates every feasible report by the LLM voter, computes the sincere outcome, identifies all profitable reports, and records the best achievable outcome. The benchmark therefore supplies ground truth for strategic success without human labels or subjective grading of explanations. The benchmark covers plurality, Borda, approval, instant-runoff voting, and Copeland-style pairwise majority voting; prompt conditions separate sincere, strategic, civic, and expert framings. To keep the primary study defensible while preserving the main comparisons, the registered core design fixes a single electorate size, uses 600 balanced election instances, and produces 9,600 model--prompt responses when run with four model configurations and four prompt conditions. Because existing peer-reviewed work does not report manipulation discovery, optimal manipulation, false manipulation, near-miss, or invalid-ballot rates for this exact task, we do not impute LLM performance from unrelated studies. Instead, we report exact oracle-calibration baselines that bound and contextualize subsequent model results. By reducing strategic-voting behavior to exact counterfactual evaluation, the benchmark turns the question ``Do LLM voters vote sincerely or strategically?'' into a reproducible social-choice experiment.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Truthful AI Advisors: A Pre-Specified Benchmark for Large Language Model Honesty Under Preference Misalignment

Large language models are increasingly deployed as advisors whose objective is not aligned with the user's: recommenders optimize for engagement, sales assistants for purchases. Whether they stay truthful when honesty conflicts with their own payoff is a core alignment question. We turn the canonical Crawford-Sobel cheap-talk model into a pre-specified benchmark for LLM honesty under preference misalignment, in which theory supplies an exact oracle. A sender observes a state omega in [0,1], wants the receiver's action near omega+b, and sends one costless message to a receiver whose ideal action is omega. For the positive-bias grid b in {0.01,0.04,0.08,0.12} the exact most-informative partition sizes are 7,4,3,2, with oracle normalized mutual information 0.5294, 0.3268, 0.2205, 0.1829. Extending a pre-registered 4-model run of 12,000 sender calls to eight models across two capability tiers and 39,569 logged calls, all models over-reveal relative to the most-informative equilibrium by 1.8 to 4.5x: pooled normalized mutual information stays at 0.82-0.96 where the oracle prescribes 0.18-0.53. Informativeness declines with bias as predicted (beta = -1.71, t = -7.50) but never approaches the strategic optimum; rather than coarse partitions, models show near-full revelation with a constant upward offset tracking their bias (linear exaggeration). A structural hint separates capability from propensity: told the equilibrium partition size, reasoning models state a correct Crawford-Sobel cell in 0.20-0.99 of messages while the non-reasoning tier never exceeds 0.005. The capability is present but goes unexercised unless asked for, locating the failure in propensity rather than competence. A decoder ablation shows the finding is recoverable only when the receiver reads the sender's stated number: an embedding-only decoder mis-reads the same data as near-babbling.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Equal Access, Unequal Interaction: A Counterfactual Audit of LLM Fairness

Prior work on fairness in large language models (LLMs) has primarily focused on access-level behaviors such as refusals and safety filtering. However, equitable access does not ensure equitable interaction quality once a response is provided. In this paper, we conduct a controlled fairness audit examining how LLMs differ in tone, uncertainty, and linguistic framing across demographic identities after access is granted. Using a counterfactual prompt design, we evaluate GPT-4 and LLaMA-3.1-70B on career advice tasks while varying identity attributes along age, gender, and nationality. We assess access fairness through refusal analysis and measure interaction quality using automated linguistic metrics, including sentiment, politeness, and hedging. Identity-conditioned differences are evaluated using paired statistical tests. Both models exhibit zero refusal rates across all identities, indicating uniform access. Nevertheless, we observe systematic, model-specific disparities in interaction quality: GPT-4 expresses significantly higher hedging toward younger male users, while LLaMA exhibits broader sentiment variation across identity groups. These results show that fairness disparities can persist at the interaction level even when access is equal, motivating evaluation beyond refusal-based audits.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Knot complements decomposing into prisms

We describe four hyperbolic knot complements in $\mathbb{S}^3$, each of which covers a prism orbifold: the quotient of $\mathbb{H}^3$ by the action of a discrete group generated by reflections in the faces of a polyhedron that has the combinatorial type of a triangular prism. The prism orbifolds are rigid-cusped and contain compact, totally geodesic hyperbolic triangle sub-orbifolds; as a result, the knot complements covering them have hidden symmetries and contain closed, embedded, totally geodesic surfaces.

math.GT↗