arXiv subjects

Shreyas Krishnan

Publications and source records attributed to Shreyas Krishnan.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Interpreting and Steering LLM Agents for Social Simulations

Simulations based on large language models (LLMs) have proven to be powerful for understanding human behavior, making them valuable additions to the social scientific toolkit. However, LLMs are ultimately black boxes based on deep neural networks which limits their value for social science. This is because of a lack of (i) interpretability: i.e. the ability to assign clear mechanisms driving observed behavior; and a lack of (ii) steerability: i.e. the ability to mute or amplify specific theoretically meaningful mechanisms of action to drive specific model behavior. Here, we demonstrate how the black box could be opened up to further enrich LLM-based simulations. Specifically, we compare three types of methods: (1) prompt-based manipulation, (2) SAE-derived feature steering, and (3) probe-based direction steering and examine their utility for LLM-based social scientific simulations. We do so by interpreting and steering two foundational components of human behaviors, namely preferences (risk attitudes, altruism) and capabilities (divergent creativity, product innovation), operationalized using four classic economic and creative tasks implemented as natural-language interactions. Overall, our results show that SAE- and probe-based techniques often outperform basic prompt-based methods for steering LLM agents, although this advantage depends on the specific prompting strategy involved. Together, SAEs and probes constitute an effective pipeline for social scientists seeking to interpret and steer agents in social simulations: SAEs decompose agents' internal representations into human-readable features, after which probes can reliably shift agents' behaviors in specified directions. We discuss implications of these methods for future work using LLM agents for social scientific simulations.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

ORQA: An Occupation-Realistic Question and Answer Framework for LLM Professional Knowledge

We present ORQA, a method for testing occupation-level knowledge in large language models. Prior methods either map abstract LLM skills to occupations via task definitions or utilize expert knowledge which is difficult to obtain at scale and expensive. ORQA complements both of these methods by connecting O*NET occupations to trusted occupation-specific websites (such as regulatory agencies, licensing bodies, professional organizations, and government publications) and converting these into source-traceable question-answer pairs. A combination of an automated pipeline and human review produces a set of high quality questions about occupations. The question set created via our method covers 116 occupations from all 21 major groups in the SOC, with 480 questions sourced from 187 different websites. Each question is designed to probe a real-world skill question that is relevant to the occupation in question. We test 15 state-of-the-art frontier and open-weight models via this method. Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 all perform the best at approximately 58-62% while smaller open-weight models achieve approximately 33-41% performance. Performance varies significantly across occupations. Healthcare-related occupations achieve the highest performance (78%) while Office and Administrative Support achieve approximately 40%. Performance on individual occupations (e.g. Sheet Metal Workers and Fish and Game Wardens) is essentially zero. We also find that open-ended questions and weighting by wage bill do not significantly affect the ranking of models on this benchmark. We believe that leveraging existing trusted occupation-specific information to test LLM knowledge in professional domains may be a scalable and useful method for evaluating occupation-level AI performance in the future. Results and data are available at orqabench.org.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Beyond the Flag: Clinical Framing Closes the Moderation Gap in Suicide Risk Measurement

Moderation APIs are built to flag policy-violating content, not to measure graded clinical risk. But a platform's duty does not end at detection: the response owed to passive distress differs sharply from the response owed to active planning with means access, and emerging regulation (e.g., California Senate Bill 243) is turning that distinction into a compliance requirement. We therefore ask how well deployed safety signals recover clinically meaningful severity. We release a benchmark of 516 r/SuicideWatch posts rated by a licensed psychiatrist on a four-level ordinal schema (Indicator, Ideation, Behavior, Attempt) grounded in the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and evaluate moderation APIs, prompted LLMs, and supervised baselines under seven ordinal-aware metrics. Three findings. Vendor moderation APIs separate low- from high-severity posts well (0.860 high-risk F1) but measure severity poorly (0.395 macro F1), systematically over-predicting the most severe category. Clinically grounded zero-shot prompting recovers much of that gap (0.562 macro F1), and expert-authored framing (not fine-tuning, added reasoning, or naive multi-agent aggregation) is the effective lever. The value of reasoning depends on register: it hurts on long, noisy Reddit posts and helps on short, clinician-authored statements. We argue graded severity, not a binary flag, is what a proportionate duty of care requires, and release our evaluation framework to support that measurement.

cs.CL↗