The reference to assumptions in how practitioners use or interact with machine learning (ML) systems is ubiquitous in HCI and responsible ML discourse. However, what remains unclear from prior works is the conceptualization of assumptions and how practitioners identify and handle assumptions throughout their workflows. This leads to confusion about what assumptions are and what needs to be done with them. We use the concept of an argument from Informal Logic, a branch of Philosophy, to offer a new perspective to understand and explicate the confusions surrounding assumptions. Through semi-structured interviews with 22 ML practitioners, we find what contributes most to these confusions is how independently assumptions are constructed, how reactively and reflectively they are handled, and how nebulously they are recorded. Our study brings the peripheral discussion of assumptions in ML to the center and presents recommendations for practitioners to better think about and work with assumptions.

In an era of increasingly capable foundation models, job seekers are turning to generative AI tools to enhance their application materials. However, unequal access to and knowledge about generative AI tools can harm both employers and candidates by reducing the accuracy of hiring decisions and giving some candidates an unfair advantage. To address these challenges, we introduce a new variant of the strategic classification framework tailored to manipulations performed using large language models, accommodating varying levels of manipulations and stochastic outcomes. We propose a ``two-ticket'' scheme, where the hiring algorithm applies an additional manipulation to each submitted resume and considers this manipulated version together with the original submitted resume. We establish theoretical guarantees for this scheme, showing improvements for both the fairness and accuracy of hiring decisions when the true positive rate is maximized subject to a no false positives constraint. We further generalize this approach to an $n$-ticket scheme and prove that hiring outcomes converge to a fixed, group-independent decision, eliminating disparities arising from differential LLM access. Finally, we empirically validate our framework and the performance of our two-ticket scheme on real resumes using an open-source resume screening tool.

Previous approaches to persona simulation large language models (LLMs) have typically relied on learning basic biographical information, or using limited role-play dialogue datasets to capture a character's responses. However, a holistic representation of an individual goes beyond surface-level facts or conversations to deeper thoughts and thinking. In this work, we introduce CharacterBot, a model designed to replicate both the linguistic patterns and distinctive thought processes of a character. Using Lu Xun, a renowned Chinese writer, as a case study, we propose four training tasks derived from his 17 essay collections. These include a pre-training task focused on mastering external linguistic structures and knowledge, as well as three fine-tuning tasks: multiple-choice question answering, generative question answering, and style transfer, each aligning the LLM with Lu Xun's internal ideation and writing style. To optimize learning across these tasks, we introduce a CharLoRA parameter updating mechanism, where a general linguistic style expert collaborates with other task-specific experts to better study both the language style and the understanding of deeper thoughts. We evaluate CharacterBot on three tasks for linguistic accuracy and opinion comprehension, demonstrating that it significantly outperforms the baselines on our adapted metrics. We hope that this work inspires future research on deep character persona simulation LLM.

Mathematical reasoning remains a challenging area for large language models (LLMs), prompting the development of math-specific LLMs such as LLEMMA, DeepSeekMath, and Qwen2-Math, among others. These models typically follow a two-stage training paradigm: pre-training with math-related corpora and posttraining with problem datasets for supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Despite these efforts, the improvements in mathematical reasoning achieved through continued pre-training (CPT) are often less significant compared to those obtained via SFT. We investigate three primary research questions: (1) Can problem-solving data enhance the model's mathematical reasoning capabilities more effectively than general mathematical corpora during CPT? (2) Are synthetic data from the same source equally effective, and which synthesis methods are most efficient? Our findings indicate that problem-solving data significantly enhances the model's mathematical capabilities compared to general mathematical corpora. We also identify effective data synthesis methods, demonstrating that the tutorship amplification synthesis method achieves the best performance. Furthermore, while SFT facilitates instruction-following abilities, it underperforms compared to CPT with the same data, which can be partially attributed to its poor learning capacity for more challenging problem-solving data. To address the challenge of insufficient mathematical reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs), various math-specific LLMs are developed. These models generally follow a common training paradigm. During the pre-training stage, math-related corpora are filtered from extensive internet data to augment the model's mathematical knowledge. Work done during Zui Chen's internship at Guangdong Institute of Smart Education, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China. Model is available at https://huggingface.co/ai4ed/MathGPT-8B This enables the models to follow instructions and produce outputs in the desired format. Recently, there is a growing focus on constructing preference datasets for the solution process to perform Step-DPO (Lai et al., 2024) or online-RLHF (Dong et al., 2024). These approaches aim to obtain more accurate reasoning pathways, thereby significantly enhancing the mathematical reasoning capabilities of the models.

Since the SciCap datasets launch in 2021, the research community has made significant progress in generating captions for scientific figures in scholarly articles. In 2023, the first SciCap Challenge took place, inviting global teams to use an expanded SciCap dataset to develop models for captioning diverse figure types across various academic fields. At the same time, text generation models advanced quickly, with many powerful pre-trained large multimodal models (LMMs) emerging that showed impressive capabilities in various vision-and-language tasks. This paper presents an overview of the first SciCap Challenge and details the performance of various models on its data, capturing a snapshot of the fields state. We found that professional editors overwhelmingly preferred figure captions generated by GPT-4V over those from all other models and even the original captions written by authors. Following this key finding, we conducted detailed analyses to answer this question: Have advanced LMMs solved the task of generating captions for scientific figures?

Large reasoning models (LRMs) tackle complex reasoning problems by following long chain-of-thoughts (Long CoT) that incorporate reflection, backtracking, and self-validation. However, the training techniques and data requirements to elicit Long CoT remain poorly understood. In this work, we find that a Large Language model (LLM) can effectively learn Long CoT reasoning through data-efficient supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and parameter-efficient low-rank adaptation (LoRA). With just 17k long CoT training samples, the Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct model achieves significant improvements on a wide range of math and coding benchmarks, including 56.7% (+40.0%) on AIME 2024 and 57.0% (+8.1%) on LiveCodeBench, competitive to the proprietary o1-preview model's score of 44.6% and 59.1%. More importantly, we find that the structure of Long CoT is critical to the learning process, whereas the content of individual reasoning steps has minimal impact. Perturbations affecting content, such as training on incorrect samples or removing reasoning keywords, have little impact on performance. In contrast, structural modifications that disrupt logical consistency in the Long CoT, such as shuffling or deleting reasoning steps, significantly degrade accuracy. For example, a model trained on Long CoT samples with incorrect answers still achieves only 3.2% lower accuracy compared to training with fully correct samples. These insights deepen our understanding of how to elicit reasoning capabilities in LLMs and highlight key considerations for efficiently training the next generation of reasoning models. This is the academic paper of our previous released Sky-T1-32B-Preview model. Codes are available at https://github.com/NovaSky-AI/SkyThought.

We introduce a professionally translated extension of the TruthfulQA benchmark designed to evaluate truthfulness in Basque, Catalan, Galician, and Spanish. Truthfulness evaluations of large language models (LLMs) have primarily been conducted in English. However, the ability of LLMs to maintain truthfulness across languages remains under-explored. Our study evaluates 12 state-of-the-art open LLMs, comparing base and instruction-tuned models using human evaluation, multiple-choice metrics, and LLM-as-a-Judge scoring. Our findings reveal that, while LLMs perform best in English and worst in Basque (the lowest-resourced language), overall truthfulness discrepancies across languages are smaller than anticipated. Furthermore, we show that LLM-as-a-Judge correlates more closely with human judgments than multiple-choice metrics, and that informativeness plays a critical role in truthfulness assessment. Our results also indicate that machine translation provides a viable approach for extending truthfulness benchmarks to additional languages, offering a scalable alternative to professional translation. Finally, we observe that universal knowledge questions are better handled across languages than context- and time-dependent ones, highlighting the need for truthfulness evaluations that account for cultural and temporal variability. Dataset and code are publicly available under open licenses.

In this work-in-progress, we investigate the certification of AI systems, focusing on the practical application and limitations of existing certification catalogues in the light of the AI Act by attempting to certify a publicly available AI system. We aim to evaluate how well current approaches work to effectively certify an AI system, and how publicly accessible AI systems, that might not be actively maintained or initially intended for certification, can be selected and used for a sample certification process. Our methodology involves leveraging the Fraunhofer AI Assessment Catalogue as a comprehensive tool to systematically assess an AI model's compliance with certification standards. We find that while the catalogue effectively structures the evaluation process, it can also be cumbersome and time-consuming to use. We observe the limitations of an AI system that has no active development team anymore and highlighted the importance of complete system documentation. Finally, we identify some limitations of the certification catalogues used and proposed ideas on how to streamline the certification process.

This paper analyzes the safety of Large Language Models (LLMs) in interactions with children below age of 18 years. Despite the transformative applications of LLMs in various aspects of children's lives such as education and therapy, there remains a significant gap in understanding and mitigating potential content harms specific to this demographic. The study acknowledges the diverse nature of children often overlooked by standard safety evaluations and proposes a comprehensive approach to evaluating LLM safety specifically for children. We list down potential risks that children may encounter when using LLM powered applications. Additionally we develop Child User Models that reflect the varied personalities and interests of children informed by literature in child care and psychology. These user models aim to bridge the existing gap in child safety literature across various fields. We utilize Child User Models to evaluate the safety of six state of the art LLMs. Our observations reveal significant safety gaps in LLMs particularly in categories harmful to children but not adults

With the different roles that AI is expected to play in human life, imbuing large language models (LLMs) with different personalities has attracted increasing research interests. While the "personification" enhances human experiences of interactivity and adaptability of LLMs, it gives rise to critical concerns about content safety, particularly regarding bias, sentiment and toxicity of LLM generation. This study explores how assigning different personality traits to LLMs affects the toxicity and biases of their outputs. Leveraging the widely accepted HEXACO personality framework developed in social psychology, we design experimentally sound prompts to test three LLMs' performance on three toxic and bias benchmarks. The findings demonstrate the sensitivity of all three models to HEXACO personality traits and, more importantly, a consistent variation in the biases, negative sentiment and toxicity of their output. In particular, adjusting the levels of several personality traits can effectively reduce bias and toxicity in model performance, similar to humans' correlations between personality traits and toxic behaviors. The findings highlight the additional need to examine content safety besides the efficiency of training or fine-tuning methods for LLM personification. They also suggest a potential for the adjustment of personalities to be a simple and low-cost method to conduct controlled text generation.