Archives AI News

arXiv:2411.17374v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Fairness in both Machine Learning (ML) predictions and human decision-making is essential, yet both are susceptible to different forms of bias, such as algorithmic and data-driven in ML, and cognitive or subjective in humans. In this study, we examine fairness using a real-world university admissions dataset comprising 870 applicant profiles, leveraging three ML models: XGB, Bi-LSTM, and KNN, alongside BERT embeddings for textual features. To evaluate individual fairness, we introduce a consistency metric that quantifies agreement in decisions among ML models and human experts with diverse backgrounds. Our analysis reveals that ML models surpass human evaluators in fairness consistency by margins ranging from 14.08% to 18.79%. Our findings highlight the potential of using ML to enhance fairness in admissions while maintaining high accuracy, advocating a hybrid approach combining human judgement and ML models.

arXiv:2508.19827v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent work has demonstrated that Chain-of-Thought (CoT) often yields limited gains for soft-reasoning problems such as analytical and commonsense reasoning. CoT can also be unfaithful to a model's actual reasoning. We investigate the dynamics and faithfulness of CoT in soft-reasoning tasks across instruction-tuned, reasoning and reasoning-distilled models. Our findings reveal differences in how these models rely on CoT, and show that CoT influence and faithfulness are not always aligned.

arXiv:2508.19679v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have enabled mobile agents to perceive and interact with real-world mobile environments based on human instructions. However, the current fully autonomous paradigm poses potential safety risks when model understanding or reasoning capabilities are insufficient. To address this challenge, we first introduce textbf{InquireBench}, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate mobile agents' capabilities in safe interaction and proactive inquiry with users, encompassing 5 categories and 22 sub-categories, where most existing VLM-based agents demonstrate near-zero performance. In this paper, we aim to develop an interactive system that actively seeks human confirmation at critical decision points. To achieve this, we propose textbf{InquireMobile}, a novel model inspired by reinforcement learning, featuring a two-stage training strategy and an interactive pre-action reasoning mechanism. Finally, our model achieves an 46.8% improvement in inquiry success rate and the best overall success rate among existing baselines on InquireBench. We will open-source all datasets, models, and evaluation codes to facilitate development in both academia and industry.

arXiv:2508.19993v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of LLM-based conversational systems is already transforming the landscape of educational technology. However, the current state-of-the-art learning models do not take into account the student's affective states. Multiple studies in educational psychology support the claim that positive or negative emotional states can impact a student's learning capabilities. To bridge this gap, we present MathBuddy, an emotionally aware LLM-powered Math Tutor, which dynamically models the student's emotions and maps them to relevant pedagogical strategies, making the tutor-student conversation a more empathetic one. The student's emotions are captured from the conversational text as well as from their facial expressions. The student's emotions are aggregated from both modalities to confidently prompt our LLM Tutor for an emotionally-aware response. We have effectively evaluated our model using automatic evaluation metrics across eight pedagogical dimensions and user studies. We report a massive 23 point performance gain using the win rate and a 3 point gain at an overall level using DAMR scores which strongly supports our hypothesis of improving LLM-based tutor's pedagogical abilities by modeling students' emotions.

arXiv:2508.19611v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Preparing high-quality instructional materials remains a labor-intensive process that often requires extensive coordination among teaching faculty, instructional designers, and teaching assistants. In this work, we present Instructional Agents, a multi-agent large language model (LLM) framework designed to automate end-to-end course material generation, including syllabus creation, lecture scripts, LaTeX-based slides, and assessments. Unlike existing AI-assisted educational tools that focus on isolated tasks, Instructional Agents simulates role-based collaboration among educational agents to produce cohesive and pedagogically aligned content. The system operates in four modes: Autonomous, Catalog-Guided, Feedback-Guided, and Full Co-Pilot mode, enabling flexible control over the degree of human involvement. We evaluate Instructional Agents across five university-level computer science courses and show that it produces high-quality instructional materials while significantly reducing development time and human workload. By supporting institutions with limited instructional design capacity, Instructional Agents provides a scalable and cost-effective framework to democratize access to high-quality education, particularly in underserved or resource-constrained settings.

arXiv:2508.19883v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The use of inappropriate language -- such as outdated, exclusionary, or non-patient-centered terms -- medical instructional materials can significantly influence clinical training, patient interactions, and health outcomes. Despite their reputability, many materials developed over past decades contain examples now considered inappropriate by current medical standards. Given the volume of curricular content, manually identifying instances of inappropriate use of language (IUL) and its subcategories for systematic review is prohibitively costly and impractical. To address this challenge, we conduct a first-in-class evaluation of small language models (SLMs) fine-tuned on labeled data and pre-trained LLMs with in-context learning on a dataset containing approximately 500 documents and over 12,000 pages. For SLMs, we consider: (1) a general IUL classifier, (2) subcategory-specific binary classifiers, (3) a multilabel classifier, and (4) a two-stage hierarchical pipeline for general IUL detection followed by multilabel classification. For LLMs, we consider variations of prompts that include subcategory definitions and/or shots. We found that both LLama-3 8B and 70B, even with carefully curated shots, are largely outperformed by SLMs. While the multilabel classifier performs best on annotated data, supplementing training with unflagged excerpts as negative examples boosts the specific classifiers' AUC by up to 25%, making them most effective models for mitigating harmful language in medical curricula.

arXiv:2508.19432v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Quantization enables efficient deployment of large language models (LLMs) in resource-constrained environments by significantly reducing memory and computation costs. While quantized LLMs often maintain performance on perplexity and zero-shot tasks, their impact on truthfulness-whether generating truthful or deceptive responses-remains largely unexplored. In this work, we introduce TruthfulnessEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework for assessing the truthfulness of quantized LLMs across three dimensions: (1) Truthfulness on Logical Reasoning; (2) Truthfulness on Common Sense; and (3) Truthfulness on Imitative Falsehoods. Using this framework, we examine mainstream quantization techniques (ranging from 4-bit to extreme 2-bit) across several open-source LLMs. Surprisingly, we find that while quantized models retain internally truthful representations, they are more susceptible to producing false outputs under misleading prompts. To probe this vulnerability, we test 15 rephrased variants of "honest", "neutral" and "deceptive" prompts and observe that "deceptive" prompts can override truth-consistent behavior, whereas "honest" and "neutral" prompts maintain stable outputs. Further, we reveal that quantized models "know" the truth internally yet still produce false outputs when guided by "deceptive" prompts via layer-wise probing and PCA visualizations. Our findings provide insights into future designs of quantization-aware alignment and truthfulness interventions.

arXiv:2508.19461v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We stress test monitoring systems for detecting covert misbehavior in autonomous LLM agents (e.g., secretly sharing private information). To this end, we systematize a monitor red teaming (MRT) workflow that incorporates: (1) varying levels of agent and monitor situational awareness; (2) distinct adversarial strategies to evade the monitor, such as prompt injection; and (3) two datasets and environments -- SHADE-Arena for tool-calling agents and our new CUA-SHADE-Arena, which extends TheAgentCompany, for computer-use agents. We run MRT on existing LLM monitor scaffoldings, which orchestrate LLMs and parse agent trajectories, alongside a new hybrid hierarchical-sequential scaffolding proposed in this work. Our empirical results yield three key findings. First, agent awareness dominates monitor awareness: an agent's knowledge that it is being monitored substantially degrades the monitor's reliability. On the contrary, providing the monitor with more information about the agent is less helpful than expected. Second, monitor scaffolding matters more than monitor awareness: the hybrid scaffolding consistently outperforms baseline monitor scaffolding, and can enable weaker models to reliably monitor stronger agents -- a weak-to-strong scaling effect. Third, in a human-in-the-loop setting where humans discuss with the LLM monitor to get an updated judgment for the agent's behavior, targeted human oversight is most effective; escalating only pre-flagged cases to human reviewers improved the TPR by approximately 15% at FPR = 0.01. Our work establishes a standard workflow for MRT, highlighting the lack of adversarial robustness for LLMs and humans when monitoring and detecting agent misbehavior. We release code, data, and logs to spur further research.

arXiv:2508.19502v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent months, substantial progress has been made in complex reasoning of Large Language Models, particularly through the application of test-time scaling. Notable examples include o1/o3/o4 series and DeepSeek-R1. When responding to a query, these models generate an extended reasoning trajectory, during which the model explores, reflects, backtracks, and self-verifies before arriving at a conclusion. However, fine-tuning models with such reasoning trajectories may not always be optimal. Our findings indicate that not all components within these reasoning trajectories contribute positively to the reasoning process; in fact, some components may affect the overall performance negatively. In this study, we divide a reasoning trajectory into individual subtrajectories and develop a "5+2" framework to: (1) systematically identify suboptimal subtrajectories within the reasoning trajectory based on five human-established criteria; (2) assess the independence of the suboptimal subtrajectories identified in (1) from the subsequent content, ensuring that their elimination does not compromise overall flow and coherence of the reasoning process. Additionally, a sampling algorithm, built upon the "5+2" framework, is employed to select data whose reasoning process is free from suboptimal subtrajectories to the highest degree. Experimental results demonstrate that our method can reduce the number of suboptimal subtrajectories by 25.9% during the inference. Furthermore, our method achieves an average accuracy of 58.92% on highly challenging math benchmarks with only two thirds of training data, surpassing the average accuracy of 58.06% achieved with the entire data, and outperforming open-source datasets, when fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Math-7B. Finally, We validated our method under resource constraints and observed improved performance across various inference token limits.

arXiv:2508.19562v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper introduces Democracy-in-Silico, an agent-based simulation where societies of advanced AI agents, imbued with complex psychological personas, govern themselves under different institutional frameworks. We explore what it means to be human in an age of AI by tasking Large Language Models (LLMs) to embody agents with traumatic memories, hidden agendas, and psychological triggers. These agents engage in deliberation, legislation, and elections under various stressors, such as budget crises and resource scarcity. We present a novel metric, the Power-Preservation Index (PPI), to quantify misaligned behavior where agents prioritize their own power over public welfare. Our findings demonstrate that institutional design, specifically the combination of a Constitutional AI (CAI) charter and a mediated deliberation protocol, serves as a potent alignment mechanism. These structures significantly reduce corrupt power-seeking behavior, improve policy stability, and enhance citizen welfare compared to less constrained democratic models. The simulation reveals that an institutional design may offer a framework for aligning the complex, emergent behaviors of future artificial agent societies, forcing us to reconsider what human rituals and responsibilities are essential in an age of shared authorship with non-human entities.