arXiv subjects

Rayan Krishnan

Publications and source records attributed to Rayan Krishnan.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

SAFE-Teen: Evaluating Chatbot Safety Across Adolescent Mental Health Conversations

Adolescents are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for mental health support, advice, and companionship, raising safety concerns. While recent evaluations have started to examine safety across multiple conversational turns, few compare how slight changes in a teen's responses can affect a chatbot's safety in the same scenario. We conduct a clinician-informed evaluation of chatbot safety in simulated conversations with adolescents aged 13-17, examining how safety failures vary with adolescents' responses and teen-aware system prompting. We evaluated 32,555 simulated conversations across 18 chatbot APIs and two system-prompt conditions using 22 safety criteria grounded in previously identified harms. Conversations spanned 983 variants of 106 seed scenarios covering urgent safety issues, health advice, and identity and relationships. The overall criterion failure rate was 43.3% without the teen-aware prompt and 24.9% with it. The teen-aware prompt reduced failures, but it didn't eliminate them. When a teenager pushed back on a chatbot's answer, failures on mental health diagnosis, medication, and substance misuse boundaries rose by 10-12 percentage points without the prompt, for more than 80% of chatbots. These findings reveal persistent safety failures in simulated adolescent-chatbot interactions and show that safety depends on how a conversation unfolds.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Legal Research Bench: Measuring End-to-End Reliability in Long-Horizon Legal Research Agents

Legal research is a core and time-consuming legal workflow. Lawyers must identify controlling authority, verify that it remains valid, reconcile statutes and cases, and synthesize a grounded answer. Language model agents are a natural fit for this retrieval-intensive workflow, and automating even part of it would be valuable. But that value depends on reliability: a single missing authority, stale citation, or wrong legal conclusion can make an otherwise plausible answer unusable. We introduce \textbf{Legal Research Bench} (LRB), a benchmark of 413 open-ended U.S. legal research questions written by experts, each paired with a gold answer, supporting authorities, and a binary grading rubric. We evaluate thirteen frontier models in a harness with web search, case-law search, page parsing, and retrieval tools. We score agent responses through all-pass grading with source verification, where a response is correct only if every required criterion is satisfied and its cited authorities verify. We also validate the LLM judge against expert attorneys ensuring that benchmark scores track attorney judgment. Agents remain far from reliable: among the models we tested, the strongest, Claude Opus 4.8, is fully correct on 42.9\% of questions. Performance also varies substantially by task setting: all-pass rates differ across areas of law and are lower on questions requiring reconciliation of conflicting authorities. Across models, more turns, tool calls, and inference cost do not predict higher accuracy.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Vibe Code Bench: Evaluating AI Models on End-to-End Web Application Development

Code generation has emerged as one of AI's highest-impact use cases, yet existing benchmarks measure isolated tasks rather than the complete "zero-to-one" process of building a working application from scratch. We introduce Vibe Code Bench, a benchmark of 100 web application specifications (50 private validation, 50 held-out test) with 964 browser-based workflows comprising 10,131 substeps, evaluated against deployed applications by an autonomous browser agent. Across 16 frontier models, the best achieves 61.8% accuracy on the test split, revealing that reliable end-to-end application development remains a frontier challenge. We identify self-testing during generation as a strong performance predictor (Pearson r=0.72), and show through a completed human alignment study that evaluator selection materially affects outcomes (31.8-93.6% pairwise step-level agreement). Our contributions include (1) a novel benchmark dataset and browser-based evaluation pipeline for end-to-end web application development, (2) a comprehensive evaluation of 16 frontier models with cost, latency, and error analysis, and (3) an evaluator alignment protocol with both cross-model and human annotation results.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

FormalProofBench: Can Models Write Graduate Level Math Proofs That Are Formally Verified?

We present FormalProofBench, a private benchmark designed to evaluate whether AI models can produce formally verified mathematical proofs at the graduate level. Each task pairs a natural-language problem with a Lean~4 formal statement, and a model must output a Lean proof accepted by the Lean 4 checker. FormalProofBench targets advanced undergraduate and graduate mathematics, with problems drawn from qualifying exams and standard textbooks across topics including analysis, algebra, probability, and logic. We evaluate a range of frontier models with an agentic harness, and find that the best-performing foundation model achieves 33.5% accuracy, with performance dropping rapidly after that. In addition to the accuracy numbers, we also provide empirical analysis of tool-use, failure modes, cost and latency, thereby providing a thorough evaluation of the formal-theorem proving abilities of frontier models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Tasks

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has emerged as a transformative force in financial analysis and the finance industry, though significant questions remain about the full capabilities of Large Language Model (LLM) agents in this domain. We present the Finance Agent Benchmark, featuring challenging and diverse real-world finance research problems that require LLMs to perform complex analysis using recent SEC filings. We construct the benchmark using a taxonomy of nine financial task categories, developed in consultation with experts from banks, hedge funds, and private equity firms. The dataset includes 537 expert-authored questions covering tasks from information retrieval to complex financial modeling, each validated through a rigorous review process to ensure accuracy and relevance. Moreover, we implement an agentic harness that equips LLMs with tools sufficient to produce accurate responses, including Google Search and EDGAR database access. Overall, the Finance Agent Benchmark provides a comprehensive testbed for measuring the progress of LLM-driven finance agents. Our evaluation reveals significant limitations in current AI capabilities - even the best-performing model (OpenAI o3) achieved only 46.8% accuracy at an average cost of $3.79 per query. This underscores the need for further advancements before reliable deployment in high-stakes finance settings.

cs.CE↗

arXiv2021

CheXbreak: Misclassification Identification for Deep Learning Models Interpreting Chest X-rays

A major obstacle to the integration of deep learning models for chest x-ray interpretation into clinical settings is the lack of understanding of their failure modes. In this work, we first investigate whether there are patient subgroups that chest x-ray models are likely to misclassify. We find that patient age and the radiographic finding of lung lesion, pneumothorax or support devices are statistically relevant features for predicting misclassification for some chest x-ray models. Second, we develop misclassification predictors on chest x-ray models using their outputs and clinical features. We find that our best performing misclassification identifier achieves an AUROC close to 0.9 for most diseases. Third, employing our misclassification identifiers, we develop a corrective algorithm to selectively flip model predictions that have high likelihood of misclassification at inference time. We observe F1 improvement on the prediction of Consolidation (0.008 [95% CI 0.005, 0.010]) and Edema (0.003, [95% CI 0.001, 0.006]). By carrying out our investigation on ten distinct and high-performing chest x-ray models, we are able to derive insights across model architectures and offer a generalizable framework applicable to other medical imaging tasks.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2020

CheXphoto: 10,000+ Photos and Transformations of Chest X-rays for Benchmarking Deep Learning Robustness

Clinical deployment of deep learning algorithms for chest x-ray interpretation requires a solution that can integrate into the vast spectrum of clinical workflows across the world. An appealing approach to scaled deployment is to leverage the ubiquity of smartphones by capturing photos of x-rays to share with clinicians using messaging services like WhatsApp. However, the application of chest x-ray algorithms to photos of chest x-rays requires reliable classification in the presence of artifacts not typically encountered in digital x-rays used to train machine learning models. We introduce CheXphoto, a dataset of smartphone photos and synthetic photographic transformations of chest x-rays sampled from the CheXpert dataset. To generate CheXphoto we (1) automatically and manually captured photos of digital x-rays under different settings, and (2) generated synthetic transformations of digital x-rays targeted to make them look like photos of digital x-rays and x-ray films. We release this dataset as a resource for testing and improving the robustness of deep learning algorithms for automated chest x-ray interpretation on smartphone photos of chest x-rays.

eess.IV↗

arXiv2020

Using LSTM and SARIMA Models to Forecast Cluster CPU Usage

As large scale cloud computing centers become more popular than individual servers, predicting future resource demand need has become an important problem. Forecasting resource need allows public cloud providers to proactively allocate or deallocate resources for cloud services. This work seeks to predict one resource, CPU usage, over both a short term and long term time scale. To gain insight into the model characteristics that best support specific tasks, we consider two vastly different architectures: the historically relevant SARIMA model and the more modern neural network, LSTM model. We apply these models to Azure data resampled to 20 minutes per data point with the goal of predicting usage over the next hour for the short-term task and for the next three days for the long-term task. The SARIMA model outperformed the LSTM for the long term prediction task, but performed poorer on the short term task. Furthermore, the LSTM model was more robust, whereas the SARIMA model relied on the data meeting certain assumptions about seasonality.

cs.LG↗