Large language models (LLMs) have gained significant traction in medical decision support systems, particularly in the context of medical question answering and role-playing simulations. A common practice, Prompt-Based Role Playing (PBRP), instructs models to adopt different clinical roles (e.g., medical students, residents, attending physicians) to simulate varied professional behaviors. However, the impact of such role prompts on model reasoning capabilities remains unclear. This study introduces the RP-Neuron-Activated Evaluation Framework(RPNA) to evaluate whether role prompts induce distinct, role-specific cognitive processes in LLMs or merely modify linguistic style. We test this framework on three medical QA datasets, employing neuron ablation and representation analysis techniques to assess changes in reasoning pathways. Our results demonstrate that role prompts do not significantly enhance the medical reasoning abilities of LLMs. Instead, they primarily affect surface-level linguistic features, with no evidence of distinct reasoning pathways or cognitive differentiation across clinical roles. Despite superficial stylistic changes, the core decision-making mechanisms of LLMs remain uniform across roles, indicating that current PBRP methods fail to replicate the cognitive complexity found in real-world medical practice. This highlights the limitations of role-playing in medical AI and emphasizes the need for models that simulate genuine cognitive processes rather than linguistic imitation.We have released the related code in the following repository:https: //github.com/IAAR-Shanghai/RolePlay_LLMDoctor

The capability of in-context learning (ICL) enables large language models (LLMs) to perform novel tasks without parameter updates by conditioning on a few input-output examples. However, collecting high-quality examples for new or challenging tasks can be costly and labor-intensive. In this work, we propose a cost-efficient two-stage pipeline that reduces reliance on LLMs for data labeling. Our approach first leverages readily available cross-task examples to prompt an LLM and pseudo-label a small set of target task instances. We then introduce a graph-based label propagation method that spreads label information to the remaining target examples without additional LLM queries. The resulting fully pseudo-labeled dataset is used to construct in-task demonstrations for ICL. This pipeline combines the flexibility of cross-task supervision with the scalability of LLM-free propagation. Experiments across five tasks demonstrate that our method achieves strong performance while lowering labeling costs.

As Large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into our lives, their inherent social biases remain a pressing concern. Detecting and evaluating these biases can be challenging because they are often implicit rather than explicit in nature, so developing evaluation methods that assess the implicit knowledge representations of LLMs is essential. We present a novel word association network methodology for evaluating implicit biases in LLMs based on simulating semantic priming within LLM-generated word association networks. Our prompt-based approach taps into the implicit relational structures encoded in LLMs, providing both quantitative and qualitative assessments of bias. Unlike most prompt-based evaluation methods, our method enables direct comparisons between various LLMs and humans, providing a valuable point of reference and offering new insights into the alignment of LLMs with human cognition. To demonstrate the utility of our methodology, we apply it to both humans and several widely used LLMs to investigate social biases related to gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and political party. Our results reveal both convergences and divergences between LLM and human biases, providing new perspectives on the potential risks of using LLMs. Our methodology contributes to a systematic, scalable, and generalizable framework for evaluating and comparing biases across multiple LLMs and humans, advancing the goal of transparent and socially responsible language technologies.

Since real-world legal experiments are often costly or infeasible, simulating legal societies with Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems provides an effective alternative for verifying and developing legal theory, as well as supporting legal administration. Large Language Models (LLMs), with their world knowledge and role-playing capabilities, are strong candidates to serve as the foundation for legal society simulation. However, the application of LLMs to simulate legal systems remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce Law in Silico, an LLM-based agent framework for simulating legal scenarios with individual decision-making and institutional mechanisms of legislation, adjudication, and enforcement. Our experiments, which compare simulated crime rates with real-world data, demonstrate that LLM-based agents can largely reproduce macro-level crime trends and provide insights that align with real-world observations. At the same time, micro-level simulations reveal that a well-functioning, transparent, and adaptive legal system offers better protection of the rights of vulnerable individuals.

Large language models are increasingly used for Islamic guidance, but risk misquoting texts, misapplying jurisprudence, or producing culturally inconsistent responses. We pilot an evaluation of GPT-4o, Ansari AI, and Fanar on prompts from authentic Islamic blogs. Our dual-agent framework uses a quantitative agent for citation verification and six-dimensional scoring (e.g., Structure, Islamic Consistency, Citations) and a qualitative agent for five-dimensional side-by-side comparison (e.g., Tone, Depth, Originality). GPT-4o scored highest in Islamic Accuracy (3.93) and Citation (3.38), Ansari AI followed (3.68, 3.32), and Fanar lagged (2.76, 1.82). Despite relatively strong performance, models still fall short in reliably producing accurate Islamic content and citations -- a paramount requirement in faith-sensitive writing. GPT-4o had the highest mean quantitative score (3.90/5), while Ansari AI led qualitative pairwise wins (116/200). Fanar, though trailing, introduces innovations for Islamic and Arabic contexts. This study underscores the need for community-driven benchmarks centering Muslim perspectives, offering an early step toward more reliable AI in Islamic knowledge and other high-stakes domains such as medicine, law, and journalism.

Evaluating reasoning ability in Large Language Models (LLMs) is important for advancing artificial intelligence, as it transcends mere linguistic task performance. It involves understanding whether these models truly understand information, perform inferences, and are able to draw conclusions in a logical and valid way. This study compare logical and abstract reasoning skills of several LLMs - including GPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, Llama, Mistral, Perplexity, and Sabi a - using a set of eight custom-designed reasoning questions. The LLM results are benchmarked against human performance on the same tasks, revealing significant differences and indicating areas where LLMs struggle with deduction.

The effectiveness of instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) is often limited in low-resource linguistic settings due to a lack of high-quality training data. We introduce LuxIT, a novel, monolingual instruction tuning dataset for Luxembourgish developed to mitigate this challenge. We synthesize the dataset from a corpus of native Luxembourgish texts, utilizing DeepSeek-R1-0528, chosen for its shown proficiency in Luxembourgish. Following generation, we apply a quality assurance process, employing an LLM-as-a-judge approach. To investigate the practical utility of the dataset, we fine-tune several smaller-scale LLMs on LuxIT. Subsequent benchmarking against their base models on Luxembourgish language proficiency examinations, however, yields mixed results, with performance varying significantly across different models. LuxIT represents a critical contribution to Luxembourgish natural language processing and offers a replicable monolingual methodology, though our findings highlight the need for further research to optimize its application.

Reinforcement learning (RL) in sparse-reward environments remains a significant challenge due to the lack of informative feedback. We propose a simple yet effective method that uses a small number of successful demonstrations to initialize the value function of an RL agent. By precomputing value estimates from offline demonstrations and using them as targets for early learning, our approach provides the agent with a useful prior over promising actions. The agent then refines these estimates through standard online interaction. This hybrid offline-to-online paradigm significantly reduces the exploration burden and improves sample efficiency in sparse-reward settings. Experiments on benchmark tasks demonstrate that our method accelerates convergence and outperforms standard baselines, even with minimal or suboptimal demonstration data.

With the rapid development of LLM-based agents, there is a growing trend to incorporate agent-specific data into the pre-training stage of LLMs, aiming to better align LLMs with real-world autonomous task execution. However, current pre-training benchmarks primarily focus on isolated and static skills, e.g., common knowledge or mathematical/code reasoning, and fail to reflect model's agentic capabilities. On the other hand, agent benchmarks are typically designed for post-trained models, requiring multi-turn task execution abilities that base models struggle to support. Thus, there is a compelling need for a benchmark that can evaluate agentic potentials during pre-training and guide the model training more effectively. To address this gap, we propose APTBench, a framework that converts real-world agent tasks and successful trajectories into multiple-choice or text completion questions tailored for base models. It focuses on core agentic abilities, e.g., planning and action, and covers key agent scenarios, software engineering and deep research. Compared to existing general-purpose benchmarks, APTBench offers a more predictive signal of a model's downstream performance as an agent, while remaining significantly more lightweight and cost-effective than full-scale, end-to-end agent evaluations after post-training.

Large Language Models (LLMs), predominantly trained on adult conversational data, face significant challenges when generating authentic, child-like dialogue for specialized applications. We present a comparative study evaluating five different LLMs (GPT-4, RUTER-LLAMA-2-13b, GPTSW, NorMistral-7b, and NorBloom-7b) to generate age-appropriate Norwegian conversations for children aged 5 and 9 years. Through a blind evaluation by eleven education professionals using both real child interview data and LLM-generated text samples, we assessed authenticity and developmental appropriateness. Our results show that evaluators achieved strong inter-rater reliability (ICC=0.75) and demonstrated higher accuracy in age prediction for younger children (5-year-olds) compared to older children (9-year-olds). While GPT-4 and NorBloom-7b performed relatively well, most models generated language perceived as more linguistically advanced than the target age groups. These findings highlight critical data-related challenges in developing LLM systems for specialized applications involving children, particularly in low-resource languages where comprehensive age-appropriate lexical resources are scarce.