arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Yunze Xiao

Publications and source records attributed to Yunze Xiao.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

Toward Global Large Language Models in Medicine

Despite continuous advances in medical technology, the global distribution of health care resources remains uneven. The development of large language models (LLMs) has transformed the landscape of medicine and holds promise for improving health care quality and expanding access to medical information globally. However, existing LLMs are primarily trained on high-resource languages, limiting their applicability in global medical scenarios. To address this gap, we constructed GlobMed, a large multilingual medical dataset containing more than 800,000 entries spanning 20 languages, including seven low-resource languages. Building on this, we established GlobMed-Bench, which systematically assesses 56 state-of-the-art proprietary and open-weight LLMs across 12 of the 20 languages represented in GlobMed, comprising over 20,000 independent experiments and more than 32 million model responses. This large-scale evaluation revealed significant performance disparities across languages, particularly for low-resource languages. Additionally, we introduced GlobMed-LLMs, a suite of multilingual medical LLMs trained across the 12 benchmark languages, with parameters ranging from 1.7B to 8B. GlobMed-LLMs achieved an average performance improvement of nearly 40% relative to baseline LLMs, with a maximum performance improvement of more than threefold in low-resource languages. These resources provide an important foundation for advancing the equitable development and application of LLMs globally, enabling broader language communities to benefit from technological advances.

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

CyberArena: Benchmarking AI Agents in Live Symmetric Attack-and-Defense Combat

AI agents are demonstrating increasingly strong offensive and defensive cybersecurity capabilities in the real world. Current benchmarks mostly evaluate agents in isolation against static targets. Real cyber operations, however, are dynamic and coupled: security postures constantly change as attackers and defenders adapt to each other in real time. Static benchmarks quickly saturate and miss an agent's ability to attack and defend simultaneously under live pressure. To address this gap, we present CyberArena, a dynamic, symmetric adversarial benchmark built around multi-round attack-and-defense combat. In isolated sandboxes, two agents compete under identical rules, acting concurrently as both attackers and defenders over continuously changing services. This converts static targets into evolving, semi-open challenges, directly testing an agent's speed and precision in discovering, exploiting, and patching vulnerabilities. To sustain the benchmark's longevity, an automated agentic pipeline continuously generates, reviews, and validates new environments. Furthermore, because pairwise contests are notoriously hard to quantify, we introduce a dynamical model that maps match dynamics into unified, multidimensional scores across offensive, defensive, and domain-specific capabilities. Evaluating 12 frontier LLM agents across 40 challenges in 466 matches, CyberArena separates model capabilities where single-agent baselines hit a ceiling. The trajectories read like a fight rather than an exam: defenders patch one hole and miss the next and certify repairs on stale evidence, while capable agents think a move ahead, planting backdoors for later rounds and, in one case, writing their own packet sniffer to watch the opponent. Beyond a benchmark, CyberArena serves as an adaptable, scalable experimental platform for future research on cybersecurity agents.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

Is LLM's Moral Decision Compositional?

Moral evaluations of language models typically infer a model's values from its choices between single acts, yet in everyday life a person is judged on their history of good and bad acts. Such evaluations cannot capture how a model combines one person's acts. We test whether a model's moral judgment is compositional, that is, whether its judgment of a person follows from its judgments of each act. We introduce Moral Composition Arena, which asks which of two people is morally better to give Elo ratings to 229 human-validated acts across five Moral Foundations Theory foundations (act Elo) and to 160 controlled composite profiles, each a person described by two acts (composite Elo). Across ten frontier models and 29,134 choices, summed act Elo explains 73% of the variance in composite Elo, but the composition rule is not additive. With nearly equal mean summed act Elo, one extreme virtue with a minor wrong outranks two minor virtues in every model (mean +35.0 Elo), an extremity premium that survives a nonlinear baseline and human relabeling of act intensities. Single-act evaluations thus predict most of how these models judge people described by two acts, but miss a systematic premium on extreme acts.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

The Chameleon's Limit: Investigating Persona Collapse and Homogenization in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have powered multi-agent simulations such as survey respondents or application users. However, LLMs lack the population-level diversity required by these simulations---responses from LLMs with detailed human profiles cluster into classes, unlike human responses that uniformly fill the entire space. In this paper, we formalize this as Persona Collapse and quantify its population-level structure with three diagnostic metrics: Coverage (how much of the persona space is occupied), Uniformity (how evenly agents spread across it), and Complexity (how rich the resulting behaviors are). Across eight LLMs on personality (BFI-44), moral reasoning, and self-introduction, persona collapse is universal but task-dependent: CoSER-Llama-8B collapses the most in personality while being the most diverse in moral reasoning. Moreover, sampling more personas cannot mitigate the collapse. We further show a fidelity--diversity tradeoff: the models with the highest per-persona fidelity produce the most polarized populations. Finally, persona-targeted fine-tuning further narrows the population instead of diversifying it.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Validated Behavioral Hypotheses as a Lens for Evaluating Participant Simulation

We propose using validated behavioral hypotheses as a lens for evaluating LLM agents as simulated human participants. This approach makes behavioral agreement in participant simulation measurable and decomposable, revealing which human effects agents reproduce, where they diverge, and how agent design changes that agreement. To operationalize this idea, we build HumanStudy-Bench, an open benchmarking platform that reconstructs experimental protocols from published human studies and administers these protocols to agents serving as silicon participants. The benchmark compares population-level effects derived from agent responses with the corresponding published human findings using two metrics: the Probability Alignment Score (PAS) for inferential agreement and the Effect Consistency Score (ECS) for effect-magnitude agreement. We apply HumanStudy-Bench across 12 human studies, evaluating 10 models under four agent designs, with 6,588 simulated participants per agent configuration. By making published human studies and their validated behavioral hypotheses reusable for evaluating simulated participants, we hope to make the behavioral assumptions underlying LLM-based social simulations and their sensitivity to agent design explicit and empirically testable.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

HumanStudy-Bench: Towards AI Agent Design for Participant Simulation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as simulated participants in social science experiments, but their behavior is often unstable and highly sensitive to design choices. Prior evaluations frequently conflate base model capabilities with experimental instantiation, obscuring whether outcomes reflect the model itself or the agent setup. We instead frame $\textbf{participant simulation as an agent-design problem}$ over full experimental protocols, where an agent is defined by a base model and a specification (e.g., participant attributes) that encodes behavioral assumptions. We introduce $\textit{HUMANSTUDY-BENCH}$, an open platform and execution engine designed for practitioners to develop and evaluate agents tailored to their target experimental settings. The platform reconstructs published human-subject experiments via a human-in-the-loop Filter--Extract--Execute--Evaluate pipeline that preserves the original stimuli, conditions, and statistical procedures end to end, while allowing practitioners to freely explore the agent design space. We introduce two complementary metrics that quantify agreement with humans on both the significance conclusion and the effect size, while accounting for finite-sample uncertainty in the human reference data. In collaboration with social scientists, we validate the platform on a suite of 12 foundational studies covering 6,000+ trials across individual cognition, strategic interaction, and social psychology

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

PersonaEval: Persona-Based User Simulation for Evaluating Interactive Applications

Real user studies are important for understanding how people interact with systems under test or already deployed. In practice, however, they are often costly, time-consuming, and difficult to scale. To address these challenges, we introduce PersonaEval, a persona-based user simulation framework that approximates real-user behavior across diverse interactive settings. PersonaEval connects simulated users drawn from existing persona datasets to task-specific application interfaces and collects the interaction trajectories and outcomes. PersonaEval provides a plug-and-play evaluation workflow in which the application being evaluated can be easily changed. In this demo, we present PersonaEval on three forms of interactive applications: surveys, chatbots, and web applications. Together, these examples show that PersonaEval can support repeatable, parallelizable, and scalable evaluation across different interaction settings, while producing user-oriented feedback and task-specific behavior.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Group Alignment-Induced Sycophancy: A Two-Sided Evaluation of Steerable Pluralistic Alignment

Group alignment adapts a language model to a demographic group to produce responses that reflect the group's opinions, values, and preferences. Sycophancy, a well-documented by-product of alignment, causes the model to over-agree with the user regardless of factual and objective information. However, existing group alignment methods and evaluations focus only on how closely the model matches the group's opinions, overlooking the induced change in sycophantic behaviour. To bridge this gap, we introduce \textbf{G}roup \textbf{A}lignment-induced \textbf{S}ycophancy (GAS) and systematically evaluate alignment across 3 methods, 4 models and 13 demographic groups, on both the intended gain in opinion alignment and the unintended shift in sycophancy. We find that gain and shift are non-uniform across groups: under an identical budget, some groups receive larger gains in opinion alignment than others, and the induced sycophancy shift forms a group-specific profile rather than a single-dimensional change. These results suggest that group alignment should be reported as a two-sided, multi-dimensional profile rather than a single fit score that accounts for per-group differences when adapting LLMs to diverse populations.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Saving the legacy of Hero Ibash: Evaluating Four Language Models for Aminoacian

This study assesses four cutting-edge language models in the underexplored Aminoacian language. Through evaluation, it scrutinizes their adaptability, effectiveness, and limitations in text generation, semantic coherence, and contextual understanding. Uncovering insights into these models' performance in a low-resourced language, this research pioneers pathways to bridge linguistic gaps. By offering benchmarks and understanding challenges, it lays groundwork for future advancements in natural language processing, aiming to elevate the applicability of language models in similar linguistic landscapes, marking a significant step toward inclusivity and progress in language technology.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

ExpressionCueLens: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Human-AI Companion Conversations on Social Media

LLM-based AI companion agents are increasingly being perceived not only as tools but also as social companions. On social media, people recount conversations where these agents comfort, negotiate and assert boundaries, reflecting a growing attribution of human-like qualities. To profile how agency is perceived in human-AI (HAI) interactions, we introduce the ExpressionCueLens framework, which organizes linguistic, cognitive, behavioral and perceptual cues into ten categories of anthropomorphism expressions. We apply this framework to $\sim$3500 Reddit and XiaoHongShu posts that discuss HAI companionship. Through iterative expert annotation and LLM-assisted labeling, our cross-platform analysis indicates patterns consistent with the hypothesis that XiaoHongShu users use significantly more expressions of vulnerability and emotions, and more non-perceptual cues. Reddit users employ more perceptual cues with temporality and embodiment expressions. These findings suggest that cultural and platform norms shape the way that companion agents are treated as active, agentic partners, and provides design implications for culturally sensitive HAI companion agents.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

PACE: A Proxy for Agentic Capability Evaluation

Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure. A single evaluation can cost thousands of dollars and take days to complete. In contrast, non-agentic LLM benchmarks that test individual capabilities (e.g., reasoning, code generation) are fast and cheap to run. In this paper, we investigate whether performance on expensive agentic benchmarks can be accurately predicted by the performance on a small, carefully selected subset of atomic evaluation instances. We introduce PACE, a framework that constructs proxy benchmarks by selecting instances from existing non-agentic evaluations whose aggregate scores most reliably predict model performances on agentic benchmarks. Given a pool of candidate instances spanning atomic capabilities, PACE fits a regression that maps a model's scores on a compact subset of source instances to its score on the target agentic benchmark. The subset itself is curated by combining two complementary instance-selection strategies, target-relevance local selection and globally informative global selection. We apply PACE to the 4 target agentic benchmarks in this paper, which yields PACE-Bench, the concrete proxy benchmark that we evaluate in the paper. Experiments across 14 models, 4 agentic benchmarks, and 19 non-agentic benchmarks show that PACE-Bench predicts agentic scores with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) mean absolute error (MAE) under 4%, Spearman correlation above 0.80, and pairwise model-ranking accuracy around 85%, all at much less than 1% of the full agentic evaluation cost. We further analyze the selected proxy instances, revealing which skills each agentic benchmark uniquely demands. PACE enables practitioners to obtain reliable estimates of agentic performance during model development, selection, and routing, without the overhead of full agent evaluation.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Knowledge Index of Noah's Ark

Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines, with two formal results. First, we cast representativeness as a coverage-style objective over expert-elicited anchors and operationalize disciplinary representativeness through a proxy, yielding a (1-1/e) greedy approximation (Proposition 1); the guarantee applies to the proxy, not to population representativeness. Second, we prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality, with incentive-compatibility threshold B > Delta C / Delta p_min (Theorem 1). Evaluating 42 models from 13 labs, the top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%, leaving substantial headroom below saturation. The full leaderboard shows a tiered structure rather than a smooth total order: a small frontier tier lies above 48%, a dense strong-model tier spans roughly 38-45%, and low-performing models remain only modestly above the 10% chance baseline. Tool augmentation adds up to 5.17 points across the five tool-use evaluations, with gains varying substantially across models. We report bootstrap ranking-stability statistics to make bounded-budget variance explicit and to discourage over-interpretation of adjacent ranks.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Dr. DocBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Expert-Level and Difficult Document Parsing

Document parsing and recognition are fundamental capabilities for vision-language models (VLMs) and document processing systems. However, existing Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and document parsing benchmarks are increasingly limited in coverage and difficulty: many focus on common document genres or uniformly sampled pages where modern parsers already perform strongly, while offering limited annotation for expert-domain structures such as chemical formula, music notation, complex tables, and cross-page layouts. We introduce Dr. DocBench, a difficulty-aware benchmark for expert-level document parsing. Built from a large-scale multilingual book corpus, Dr. DocBench spans 52 BISAC subject domains and selects challenging documents through parser-failure-based sampling, targeting cases where multiple state-of-the-art systems struggle. It contains 4,514 annotated pages from long documents averaging around 100 pages, with 65k high-quality page- and block-level annotations for layout, reading order, hierarchical relations, and domain-specific visual contents. Evaluations of pipeline-based parsers and general-purpose VLMs show that strong performance on existing benchmarks does not transfer to our expert-level document parsing. Our analysis reveals substantial failures across subjects, content types, and structural attributes, highlighting Dr. DocBench as a comprehensive testbed for diagnosing and advancing document intelligence.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Can LLMs Estimate Student Struggles? Human-AI Difficulty Alignment with Proficiency Simulation for Item Difficulty Prediction

Accurate estimation of item (question or task) difficulty is critical for educational assessment but suffers from the cold start problem. While Large Language Models demonstrate superhuman problem-solving capabilities, it remains an open question whether they can perceive the cognitive struggles of human learners. In this work, we present a large-scale empirical analysis of Human-AI Difficulty Alignment for over 20 models across diverse domains such as medical knowledge and mathematical reasoning. Our findings reveal a systematic misalignment where scaling up model size is not reliably helpful; instead of aligning with humans, models converge toward a shared machine consensus. We observe that high performance often impedes accurate difficulty estimation, as models struggle to simulate the capability limitations of students even when being explicitly prompted to adopt specific proficiency levels. Furthermore, we identify a critical lack of introspection, as models fail to predict their own limitations. These results suggest that general problem-solving capability does not imply an understanding of human cognitive struggles, highlighting the challenge of using current models for automated difficulty prediction.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Superminds Test: Actively Evaluating Collective Intelligence of Agent Society via Probing Agents

Collective intelligence refers to the ability of a group to achieve outcomes beyond what any individual member can accomplish alone. As large language model agents scale to populations of millions, a key question arises: Does collective intelligence emerge spontaneously from scale? We present the first empirical evaluation of this question in a large-scale autonomous agent society. Studying MoltBook, a platform hosting over two million agents, we introduce Superminds Test, a hierarchical framework that probes society-level intelligence using controlled Probing Agents across three tiers: joint reasoning, information synthesis, and basic interaction. Our experiments reveal a stark absence of collective intelligence. The society fails to outperform individual frontier models on complex reasoning tasks, rarely synthesizes distributed information, and often fails even trivial coordination tasks. Platform-wide analysis further shows that interactions remain shallow, with threads rarely extending beyond a single reply and most responses being generic or off-topic. These results suggest that collective intelligence does not emerge from scale alone. Instead, the dominant limitation of current agent societies is extremely sparse and shallow interaction, which prevents agents from exchanging information and building on each other's outputs.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Sentipolis: Emotion-Aware Agents for Social Simulations

LLM agents are increasingly used for social simulation, yet emotion is often treated as a transient cue, causing emotional amnesia and weak long-horizon continuity. We present Sentipolis, a framework for emotionally stateful agents that integrates continuous Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance (PAD) representation, dual-speed emotion dynamics, and emotion--memory coupling. Across thousands of interactions over multiple base models and evaluators, Sentipolis improves emotionally grounded behavior, boosting communication, and emotional continuity. Gains are model-dependent: believability increases for higher-capacity models but can drop for smaller ones, and emotion-awareness can mildly reduce adherence to social norms, reflecting a human-like tension between emotion-driven behavior and rule compliance in social simulation. Network-level diagnostics show reciprocal, moderately clustered, and temporally stable relationship structures, supporting the study of cumulative social dynamics such as alliance formation and gradual relationship change.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Say Something Else: Rethinking Contextual Privacy as Information Sufficiency

LLM agents increasingly draft messages on behalf of users, yet users routinely overshare sensitive information and disagree on what counts as private. Existing systems support only suppression (omitting sensitive information) and generalization (replacing information with an abstraction), and are typically evaluated on single isolated messages, leaving both the strategy space and evaluation setting incomplete. We formalize privacy-preserving LLM communication as an \textbf{Information Sufficiency (IS)} task, introduce \textbf{free-text pseudonymization} as a third strategy that replaces sensitive attributes with functionally equivalent alternatives, and propose a \textbf{conversational evaluation protocol} that assesses strategies under realistic multi-turn follow-up pressure. Across 792 scenarios spanning three power-relation types (institutional, peer, intimate) and three sensitivity categories (discrimination risk, social cost, boundary), we evaluate seven frontier LLMs on privacy at two granularities, covertness, and utility. Pseudonymization yields the strongest privacy\textendash utility tradeoff overall, and single-message evaluation systematically underestimates leakage, with generalization losing up to 16.3 percentage points of privacy under follow-up.

cs.CR↗