arXiv subjects

Mark Dredze

Publications and source records attributed to Mark Dredze.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Before You Continue: Evaluating Time-Sensitive Safety Awareness in Conversational Assistants

Large language model (LLM) assistants increasingly help users with everyday activities that involve time-dependent constraints. However, users may not mention these constraints in later requests, requiring assistants to recognize and adjust their advice accordingly. To evaluate such capability, we introduce TASC (Temporal Action Safety in Conversation), a benchmark that evaluates whether LLMs apply time-dependent constraints when responding to conversational requests. TASC consists of 3,418 inputs derived from 128 templates, along with a separate set of 33 scenarios designed to compare models' ability to calculate elapsed time with their ability to apply that information. Across 13 models, assistants account for time-dependent constraints in only 30.5% of cases where the proposed action violates a rule, while rarely warning users unnecessarily. More importantly, models fail to apply these constraints in 62.1% of cases despite correctly calculating the elapsed time. Explicitly providing the timing resolves only about half of these failures, revealing a gap between temporal reasoning and its application in conversational advice.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

On the Behavioral Traits of LLM Agents

Users increasingly describe different AI agents as distinct colleagues to work with. AI personality research aims to quantify such impressions by attributing human- like "traits" to agents. However, existing measures fall short: models' self-reports (S-data) diverge from their actual behavior, while informant ratings from LLM judges (I-data) are costly to scale and cover few everyday scenarios. In this paper, we propose A-B-D to infer traits bottom-up from behavioral data (B-data), namely how agents act on their environment and communicate with users, as recorded in existing trajectories. From 345,667 real-world trajectories spanning 80 models, 12 tasks, and 50 harnesses, we extract 318 candidate features that capture both the actions an agent takes at each step (functional) and the language accompanying them (linguistic). We retain only features that show instance-level stability, cross-task consistency, and model discriminability. Factor analysis of the remaining 79 features uncovers six stable, model-attributable factors, two functional and four linguistic. For example, Claude-Sonnet-4.6 and Kimi-K3 exhibit the most planfulness, whereas GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 are the least energetic. Moreover, we quantify the "knowledge-action gap" in the wild: these factors correlate only weakly with self-reported Big Five scores, even for conceptually matched pairs such as extraversion and energetic (r = 0.07, p = 0.58). Our work offers a new lens for understanding AI personality, with implications for users, developers, and researchers from both computer science and social science.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Accurate but Not Humble: Evaluating Epistemic Humility in LLM Agents under Knowledge Conflict

When retrieved evidence contradicts an agent's prior beliefs, does it revise its answer, acknowledge uncertainty, or persist with an incorrect conclusion? Existing evaluations of agentic systems focus primarily on task success, offering limited insight into how agents handle such conflicts. We propose to evaluate agents on epistemic humility (EH): the agent's willingness to recognize, act on, and communicate uncertainty during task execution. We operationalize EH through three trajectory-level behavioral dimensions: Identify, Solve, and Escalate (ISE). Through knowledge conflict, situations where the backbone language model's parametric knowledge contradicts the evidence it encounters, or where two contextual sources disagree, we evaluate two conflict settings: (1) controlled conflict and (2) naturally occurring conflict during multi-step agentic execution, each paired with matched no-conflict controls. Evaluating four agents, we find that higher task accuracy does not necessarily correspond to greater epistemic humility: some high-accuracy configurations recognize conflicts during execution but do not communicate unresolved uncertainty in their incorrect final answers. Trajectory-level analysis further reveals that agents frequently detect conflicts in early steps of execution but fail to maintain or resolve them in later steps. Finally, we show that model-level interventions can improve EH, but often at the cost of task accuracy, suggesting that epistemic humility emerges from the interaction among the backbone model, agent harness, and evaluation environment.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Verb-ICL: Rethinking In-Context Learning for Structured Prediction

Structured prediction tasks pose unique challenges for in-context learning (ICL): their compositional outputs require modeling fine-grained, token-level patterns that sentence-level approaches fail to capture, and their task-specific annotation conventions are human-defined artifacts that cannot be acquired through pretraining alone. We propose Verb-ICL, a selective annotation framework for ICL-based structured prediction that addresses both challenges. Verb-ICL first selects representative examples using a token-level coverage strategy that captures local semantic patterns critical for structured prediction, then generates actionable error feedback that codifies task-specific annotation guidelines and incorporates this feedback into ICL demonstrations. We evaluate Verb-ICL on six structured prediction datasets spanning information extraction and semantic parsing. Experiments with recent LLMs show that Verb-ICL consistently outperforms strong selective annotation baselines under low-resource settings and continues to provide gains as the annotation budget increases. Extended analyses demonstrate that the generated feedback is predominantly useful across a four-category quality taxonomy, generalizes as task-level guidance beyond instance-specific corrections, and improves performance regardless of the underlying selection strategy.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Where Does Retrieval-Based Open-Ended Evaluation Fail? Automatic Taxonomy Induction from Long-Form Medical Answer Factuality Verification

Retrieval-based factuality evaluation, where LLM-generated claims are verified against evidence from authoritative medical corpora, has become the dominant paradigm for scalable hallucination detection in high-stakes clinical settings. Despite the urgency of reliable and transparent medical fact verification, most systems measure performance with aggregate metrics like F1, which obscure where and why failures occur. Existing RAG diagnostics require gold answers or annotated gold evidence, neither of which exists in this regime. We introduce two comprehensive taxonomies, grounded in a case study on the open-ended MedExpert dataset and 3 closed-ended datasets, decomposing failures into retrieval-stage errors along five quality dimensions, and verifier-reasoning errors into six consecutive steps. We adapt an automatic pattern induction pipeline using LLM-as-Judge to label evidence quality and classify verifier reasoning errors at scale, and then stress-test our findings across 4 retrieval methods and 6 frontier verifier models. Our analysis reveals that scaling model size, adding reasoning effort, expanding to authoritative web sources, and applying medical fine-tuning do not resolve these failure modes, demonstrating that they represent fundamental limitations of the retrieve-then-verify paradigm in open-ended medical settings rather than artifacts of outdated systems. We release our code and data at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Medical_RAG_eval-4AB5 for the full reproducibility of our results.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

On the Threat Model of Weird Generalization and Emergent Misalignment

Narrow fine-tuning on small, domain-specific datasets can produce broad and surprising changes in model behavior-a phenomenon called weird generalization (WG). Yet, it remains unclear what features of the fine-tuning data are necessary for WG to arise. Here, we address this question by investigating a range of plausibly relevant features, including dataset size, composition, language, presentation style, and novelty relative to a model's parametric knowledge. Further, since WG evaluations rely on small question sets that assess the extent of the generalization, we also analyze how sensitive this measurement is to the set of questions used. Experiments with three open-weight models on four datasets show that the degree of WG (1) depends heavily on dataset composition and language (more than on size); (2) is greater for data familiar from pretraining than for novel data; and (3) is sensitive to the set of evaluation questions used. Collectively, these results indicate that WG is a product of quite fragile properties of both training and evaluation data. As such, we argue that WG is more plausible as an adversarial threat-requiring careful data engineering-rather than as a significant hazard inherent to routine fine-tuning.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Information Satisfaction: A Reader-Centered Axis for Summarization Evaluation

The majority of work on summarization evaluation focuses on general summary quality (e.g., ROUGE, BERTScore) or specific desired properties (e.g., readability, factuality). However, these metrics fail to measure the utility of a summary to an individual user. For example, a biomedical researcher learning about the latest vaccine research will have different informational needs from a family doctor. Query-focused summarization captures part of this need, but in practice, users rarely state everything relevant in a query: a single short query is likely inadequate to distinguish the needs of a researcher from those of a physician. By contrast, a reader's background or persona (their role and expertise) is comparatively stable across queries and recovers much of this missing context, which makes it a practical signal for assessing whether a summary satisfies that reader's needs. In this work, we assess how sensitive popular summarization metrics are to both informational and persona differences, and find that many popular metrics, including strong LLM-as-judge metrics, fail basic perturbation tests of informational content. We additionally conduct an expert human evaluation, measuring summary preferences based on information satisfaction given a specific person's background and use case. We find that both traditional and LLM-based metrics are insufficient measures of information satisfaction and agree poorly with human judgment.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Innovation-Residual Auditing of Autonomous Analysis Agents: Localization, Detection Limits, Error Control, and Identifiability

Autonomous agents now carry out entire data analyses, selecting cohorts, joining tables, and fitting models with little step-by-step supervision. When such an analysis turns out to be wrong, someone must determine which operation caused it. A recent approach does this without any labelled mistakes, learning instead from analyses known to be sound and flagging operations that depart from what that model predicts; how reliable such audits are has not been studied. This paper supplies that analysis. The choice of score determines whether an error can be localized at all. If each operation is scored by how surprising it is given the operation immediately preceding it, then operations that merely inherit an earlier error are indistinguishable from correct ones, so one mistake produces one flag; scores computed against a longer reconstruction of the intended analysis instead spread a single mistake across many operations. We quantify how far they spread, and how to choose the comparison length when an error accumulates gradually rather than at once. We then give procedures that control the proportion of falsely flagged operations within a single audited analysis, requiring only that sound analyses be exchangeable rather than that the fitted model be correct, and we quantify how much the guarantees weaken when the model is imperfect or when the analysis was selected for review in a way that depends on its content. Finally we establish a limit on what any such audit can report: errors below a certain magnitude cannot be attributed at all, being indistinguishable from ordinary variation among sound analyses. This limit falls so slowly as more sound analyses are collected that at the representation sizes now in use a hundredfold increase reduces it by under two percent, so the dimension of the representation rather than the volume of training data is the binding constraint.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Capability-Gated Planning: Cost-to-Goal Discovery and the Limits of Myopic Experiment Selection

Systems that automate scientific discovery must repeatedly decide which experiment to run, which hypothesis to test, which tool to build, and when to stop. Many systems make these decisions by maximizing a myopic score such as expected information gain per unit cost or a learned plausibility score. We identify a structural limitation of this approach. Some actions are constructive: they acquire an epistemic capability (an instrument, assay, pipeline, simulator, or abstraction) whose value lies not in the information returned immediately but in the future actions it makes available. When the least-cost route to a confident answer requires a chain of such constructions, a planner that scores actions only by information obtainable within a bounded horizon cannot value the first construction: it yields no information within the horizon and is dominated by any measurement with positive information, however small. We formulate goal-directed discovery as a stochastic shortest-path problem in belief space in which constructive experiments change the downstream action graph, and prove that for every lookahead depth d there is an instance on which every myopic information-maximizing planner has an unbounded approximation ratio, and a related instance on which it never reaches the goal. The mechanism is a capability-indistinguishability lemma: within the horizon, acquiring a capability can be observationally indistinguishable from paying for a null action. This establishes capability gating as a reachability axis of difficulty distinct from curvature (submodularity) and information order (adaptivity gaps). We introduce CG-Plan, an incremental replanner with a capability-aware cost-to-go heuristic h = h_cap + h_exp. In a controlled testbed, the performance gap appears only under gating, persists for every fixed horizon, and arises when near-miss hypotheses come from a data-consistent proposer.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

FIRE-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on the Rediscovery of Scientific Insights

Autonomous agents powered by large language models (LLMs) promise to accelerate scientific discovery end-to-end, but rigorously evaluating their capacity for verifiable discovery remains a central challenge. Existing benchmarks face a trade-off: they either heavily rely on LLM-as-judge evaluations of automatically generated research outputs or optimize convenient yet isolated performance metrics that provide coarse proxies for scientific insight. To address this gap, we introduce FIRE-Bench (Full-cycle Insight Rediscovery Evaluation), a benchmark that evaluates agents through the rediscovery of established findings from recent, high-impact machine learning research. Agents are given only a high-level research question extracted from a published, verified study and must autonomously explore ideas, design experiments, implement code, execute their plans, and derive conclusions supported by empirical evidence. We evaluate a range of state-of-the-art agents with frontier LLMs backbones like gpt-5 on FIRE-Bench. Our results show that full-cycle scientific research remains challenging for current agent systems: even the strongest agents achieve limited rediscovery success (<50 F1), exhibit high variance across runs, and display recurring failure modes in experimental design, execution, and evidence-based reasoning. FIRE-Bench provides a rigorous and diagnostic framework for measuring progress toward reliable agent-driven scientific discovery.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating Implicit Biases in LLM Reasoning through Logic Grid Puzzles

While recent safety guardrails effectively suppress overtly biased outputs, subtler forms of social bias emerge during complex logical reasoning tasks that evade current evaluation benchmarks. To fill this gap, we introduce a new evaluation framework, PRIME (Puzzle Reasoning for Implicit Biases in Model Evaluation), that uses logic grid puzzles to systematically probe the influence of social stereotypes on logical reasoning and decision making in LLMs. Our use of logic puzzles enables automatic generation and verification, as well as variability in complexity and biased settings. PRIME includes stereotypical, anti-stereotypical, and neutral puzzle variants generated from a shared puzzle structure, allowing for controlled and fine-grained comparisons. We evaluate multiple model families across puzzle sizes and test the effectiveness of prompt-based mitigation strategies. Focusing our experiments on gender stereotypes, our findings highlight that models consistently reason more accurately when solutions align with stereotypical associations. This demonstrates the significance of PRIME for diagnosing and quantifying social biases perpetuated in the deductive reasoning of LLMs, where fairness is critical.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Probing Multimodal Large Language Models on Cognitive Biases in Chinese Short-Video Misinformation

Short-video platforms have become major channels for misinformation, where deceptive claims frequently leverage visual experiments and social cues. While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities, their robustness against misinformation entangled with cognitive biases remains under-explored. In this paper, we introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework using a high-quality, manually annotated dataset of 200 short videos spanning four health domains. This dataset provides fine-grained annotations for three deceptive patterns-experimental errors, logical fallacies, and fabricated claims-each verified by evidence such as national standards and academic literature. We evaluate eight frontier MLLMs across five modality settings. Experimental results demonstrate that Gemini-2.5-Pro achieves the highest performance in the multimodal setting with a belief score of 71.5/100, while o3 performs the worst at 35.2. Furthermore, we investigate social cues that induce false beliefs in videos and find that models are susceptible to biases like authoritative channel IDs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Reading, Not Thinking: Understanding and Bridging the Modality Gap When Text Becomes Pixels in Multimodal LLMs

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process text presented as images, yet they often perform worse than when the same content is provided as textual tokens. We systematically diagnose this "modality gap" by evaluating seven MLLMs across seven benchmarks in five input modes, spanning both synthetically rendered text and realistic document images from arXiv PDFs to Wikipedia pages. We find that the gap is highly sensitive to rendering choices such as font and resolution, and that natural document images often exhibit much smaller gaps, suggesting the performance difference partly reflects evaluation artifacts rather than fundamental limitations. Through a grounded-theory error analysis of over 4,000 examples, we identify the primary cause: image input alone suppresses reasoning effort, with models producing 5--19x shorter outputs that skip step-by-step computation or reasoning. The reluctance to reason, not a failure of perception or knowledge retrieval, drives the performance gap, particularly on tasks requiring multi-step reasoning. We show that a simple, lightweight on-policy self-distillation method by fine-tuning models on their own text-mode reasoning traces paired with image inputs closes this gap, raising image-mode accuracy to match or exceed text-mode performance with over 50\% improvement, and the gains transfer to unseen benchmarks without catastrophic forgetting. Overall, our results and analyses provide a systematic understanding of the modality gap and suggest a practical path toward improving visual text understanding in multimodal language models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Artificial Intolerance: Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation Skews Large Language Model Decision-Making

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as clinical decision support and medical documentation. However, the robustness of these models against subtle linguistic variations, specifically stigmatizing language (SL) commonly found in human-authored clinical notes, remains critically under-explored. In this work, we investigate whether frontier LLMs inherit and propagate this human bias when processing clinical text. We systematically evaluate nine frontier LLMs across four stigmatized medical conditions, utilizing clinical vignettes injected with varying intensities and phenotypes of SL (doubt, blame, and maligning). Our results demonstrate that all evaluated models exhibit substantial bias, with clinical decision-making significantly skewed towards less aggressive patient management. Notably, we observe a high sensitivity to linguistic framing, where a single SL sentence is sufficient to alter model outputs, revealing a clear dose-response relationship. Furthermore, we evaluate standard prompt-based mitigation strategies, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and model self-debiasing. These approaches show limited efficacy; models struggle to explicitly identify SL while remaining implicitly influenced by it. Our findings expose a critical vulnerability in current LLMs regarding fairness and robustness in clinical NLP, underscoring the need for rigorous algorithmic guardrails to prevent the automation of health disparities.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

How to Interpret Agent Behavior

Autonomous agents such as Claude Code and Codex now operate for hours or even days. Understanding their runtime behavior has become critical for downstream tasks such as diagnosing inefficiencies, fixing bugs, and ensuring better oversight. A primary way to gain this understanding is analyzing the reasoning trajectories and execution traces these agents generate. Yet such data remains in unstructured natural-language form, making it difficult for humans to interpret at scale. We introduce ACT*ONOMY (a combination of Action and Taxonomy), a taxonomy for describing and analyzing agent behavior at runtime. ACT*ONOMY has two components: (1) the taxonomy itself, developed through Grounded Theory and structured as a three-level hierarchy of 10 actions, 46 subactions, and 120 leaf categories; and (2) an open repository that hosts the living taxonomy, provides an automated analysis pipeline that applies it to agent trajectories analysis, and defines an extension protocol for customization and growth. Our experiments show that ACTONOMY can compare behavioral profiles across agents and characterize a single agent's behavior across diverse trajectories, surfacing patterns indicative of failure modes. By providing a shared vocabulary, ACT*ONOMY helps researchers, agent designers, and end users interpret agent behavior more consistently, enabling better oversight and control.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Weird Generalization is Weirdly Brittle

Weird generalization is a phenomenon in which models fine-tuned on data from a narrow domain (e.g. insecure code) develop surprising traits that manifest even outside that domain (e.g. broad misalignment)-a phenomenon that prior work has highlighted as a critical safety concern. Here, we present an extended replication study of key weird generalization results across an expanded suite of models and datasets. We confirm that surprising (and dangerous) traits can emerge under certain circumstances, but we find that weird generalization is exceptionally brittle: it emerges only for specific models on specific datasets, and it vanishes under simple training-time, prompt-based interventions. We find that the most effective interventions provide prompt context that makes the generalized behavior the expected behavior. However, we show that even very generic interventions that do not anticipate specific generalized traits can still be effective in mitigating weird generalization's effects. Our findings thus help clarify the nature of the safety threat that weird generalization poses and point toward an easily implemented set of solutions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Task Matters: Knowledge Requirements Shape LLM Responses to Context-Memory Conflict

Large language models (LLMs) draw on both contextual information and parametric memory, yet these sources can conflict. Prior studies have largely examined this issue in contextual question answering, implicitly assuming that tasks should rely on the provided context, leaving unclear how LLMs behave when tasks require different types and degrees of knowledge utilization. We address this gap with a model-agnostic diagnostic framework that holds underlying knowledge constant while introducing controlled conflicts across tasks with varying knowledge demands. Experiments on representative open-weight and proprietary LLMs show that performance degradation under conflict is driven by both task-specific knowledge reliance and conflict plausibility; that strategies such as rationales or context reiteration increase context reliance, helping context-only tasks but harming those requiring parametric knowledge; and that these effects bias model-based evaluation, calling into question the reliability of LLMs as judges. Overall, our findings reveal that context-memory conflict is inherently task-dependent and motivate task-aware approaches to balancing context and memory in LLM deployment and evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Same Verdict, Different Reasons: LLM-as-a-Judge and Clinician Disagreement on Medical Chatbot Completeness

LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks are increasingly trusted to automate evaluation in place of human experts, yet their reliability in high-stakes medical contexts remains unproven. We stress-test this assumption for detecting incomplete patient-facing medical responses, evaluating three rubric granularities (General-Likert, Analytical-Rubric, Dynamic-Checklist) and three backbone models across two clinician-annotated datasets, including HealthBench, the largest publicly available benchmark for medical response evaluation. LLM Judges discriminate complete from incomplete responses at and slightly above near chance (AUC $0.49$--$0.66$); at the threshold required to recall $90\%$ of incomplete responses, clinicians must still review the vast majority of the dataset, offering no triage utility. Even when model and clinician verdicts agree, they rarely cite the same explanation; and when they diverge, false positives stem from over-flagging non-essential gaps while false negatives reflect outright detection failures. These results reveal that LLM Judges and clinicians apply fundamentally different completeness standards; a finding that undermines their use as autonomous evaluators or triage filters in clinical settings.

cs.CY↗