Today's large language models (LLMs) are capable of supporting multilingual scenarios, allowing users to interact with LLMs in their native languages. When LLMs respond to subjective questions posed by users, they are expected to align with the views of specific demographic groups or historical periods, shaped by the language in which the user interacts with the model. Existing studies mainly focus on researching the opinions represented by LLMs among demographic groups in the United States or a few countries, lacking worldwide country samples and studies on human opinions in different historical periods, as well as lacking discussion on using language to steer LLMs. Moreover, they also overlook the potential influence of prompt language on the alignment of LLMs' opinions. In this study, our goal is to fill these gaps. To this end, we create an evaluation framework based on the World Values Survey (WVS) to systematically assess the alignment of LLMs with human opinions across different countries, languages, and historical periods around the world. We find that LLMs appropriately or over-align the opinions with only a few countries while under-aligning the opinions with most countries. Furthermore, changing the language of the prompt to match the language used in the questionnaire can effectively steer LLMs to align with the opinions of the corresponding country more effectively than existing steering methods. At the same time, LLMs are more aligned with the opinions of the contemporary population. To our knowledge, our study is the first comprehensive investigation of the topic of opinion alignment in LLMs across global, language, and temporal dimensions. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/ku-nlp/global-opinion-alignment and https://github.com/nlply/global-opinion-alignment.

A loop invariant is a property of a loop that remains true before and after each execution of the loop. The identification of loop invariants is a critical step to support automated program safety assessment. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in diverse software engineering (SE) and formal verification tasks. However, we are not aware of the performance of LLMs to infer loop invariants. We report an empirical study of both open-source and closed-source LLMs of varying sizes to assess their proficiency in inferring inductive loop invariants for programs and in fixing incorrect invariants. Our findings reveal that while LLMs exhibit some utility in inferring and repairing loop invariants, their performance is substantially enhanced when supplemented with auxiliary information such as domain knowledge and illustrative examples. LLMs achieve a maximum success rate of 78\% in generating, but are limited to 16\% in repairing the invariant.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce explanations that do not faithfully reflect the factors driving their predictions. In healthcare settings, such unfaithfulness is especially problematic: explanations that omit salient clinical cues or mask spurious shortcuts can undermine clinician trust and lead to unsafe decision support. We study how inference and training-time choices shape explanation faithfulness, focusing on factors practitioners can control at deployment. We evaluate three LLMs (GPT-4.1-mini, LLaMA 70B, LLaMA 8B) on two datasets-BBQ (social bias) and MedQA (medical licensing questions), and manipulate the number and type of few-shot examples, prompting strategies, and training procedure. Our results show: (i) both the quantity and quality of few-shot examples significantly impact model faithfulness; (ii) faithfulness is sensitive to prompting design; (iii) the instruction-tuning phase improves measured faithfulness on MedQA. These findings offer insights into strategies for enhancing the interpretability and trustworthiness of LLMs in sensitive domains.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities for many coding tasks, including summarization, translation, completion, and code generation. However, detecting code vulnerabilities remains a challenging task for LLMs. An effective way to improve LLM performance is in-context learning (ICL) - providing few-shot examples similar to the query, along with correct answers, can improve an LLM's ability to generate correct solutions. However, choosing the few-shot examples appropriately is crucial to improving model performance. In this paper, we explore two criteria for choosing few-shot examples for ICL used in the code vulnerability detection task. The first criterion considers if the LLM (consistently) makes a mistake or not on a sample with the intuition that LLM performance on a sample is informative about its usefulness as a few-shot example. The other criterion considers similarity of the examples with the program under query and chooses few-shot examples based on the $k$-nearest neighbors to the given sample. We perform evaluations to determine the benefits of these criteria individually as well as under various combinations, using open-source models on multiple datasets.

We present a novel agent-based approach for the automated claim matching task with instruction-following LLMs. We propose a two-step pipeline that first generates prompts with LLMs, to then perform claim matching as a binary classification task with LLMs. We demonstrate that LLM-generated prompts can outperform SOTA with human-generated prompts, and that smaller LLMs can do as well as larger ones in the generation process, allowing to save computational resources. We also demonstrate the effectiveness of using different LLMs for each step of the pipeline, i.e. using an LLM for prompt generation, and another for claim matching. Our investigation into the prompt generation process in turn reveals insights into the LLMs' understanding of claim matching.

Financial narratives from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing reports and quarterly earnings call transcripts (ECTs) are very important for investors, auditors, and regulators. However, their length, financial jargon, and nuanced language make fine-grained analysis difficult. Prior sentiment analysis in the financial domain required a large, expensive labeled dataset, making the sentence-level stance towards specific financial targets challenging. In this work, we introduce a sentence-level corpus for stance detection focused on three core financial metrics: debt, earnings per share (EPS), and sales. The sentences were extracted from Form 10-K annual reports and ECTs, and labeled for stance (positive, negative, neutral) using the advanced ChatGPT-o3-pro model under rigorous human validation. Using this corpus, we conduct a systematic evaluation of modern large language models (LLMs) using zero-shot, few-shot, and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting strategies. Our results show that few-shot with CoT prompting performs best compared to supervised baselines, and LLMs' performance varies across the SEC and ECT datasets. Our findings highlight the practical viability of leveraging LLMs for target-specific stance in the financial domain without requiring extensive labeled data.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated capabilities in audio understanding, but current evaluations may obscure fundamental weaknesses in relational reasoning. We introduce the Music Understanding and Structural Evaluation (MUSE) Benchmark, an open-source resource with 10 tasks designed to probe fundamental music perception skills. We evaluate four SOTA models (Gemini Pro and Flash, Qwen2.5-Omni, and Audio-Flamingo 3) against a large human baseline (N=200). Our results reveal a wide variance in SOTA capabilities and a persistent gap with human experts. While Gemini Pro succeeds on basic perception, Qwen and Audio Flamingo 3 perform at or near chance, exposing severe perceptual deficits. Furthermore, we find Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting provides inconsistent, often detrimental results. Our work provides a critical tool for evaluating invariant musical representations and driving development of more robust AI systems.

Modern consumer banking applications require accurate and efficient retrieval of information in response to user queries. Mapping user utterances to the most relevant Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) is a crucial component of these systems. Traditional approaches often rely on a single model or technique, which may not capture the nuances of diverse user inquiries. In this paper, we introduce a multi-agent framework for FAQ annotation that combines multiple specialized agents with different approaches and a judge agent that reranks candidates to produce optimal results. Our agents utilize a structured reasoning approach inspired by Attentive Reasoning Queries (ARQs), which guides them through systematic reasoning steps using targeted, task-specific JSON queries. Our framework features a few-shot example strategy, where each agent receives different few-shots, enhancing ensemble diversity and coverage of the query space. We evaluate our framework on a real-world major bank dataset as well as public benchmark datasets (LCQMC and FiQA), demonstrating significant improvements over single-agent approaches across multiple metrics, including a 14% increase in Top-1 accuracy, an 18% increase in Top-5 accuracy, and a 12% improvement in Mean Reciprocal Rank on our dataset, and similar gains on public benchmarks when compared with traditional and single-agent annotation techniques. Our framework is particularly effective at handling ambiguous queries, making it well-suited for deployment in production banking applications while showing strong generalization capabilities across different domains and languages.

ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) tools such as IBM DataStage allow users to visually assemble complex data workflows, but configuring stages and their properties remains time consuming and requires deep tool knowledge. We propose a system that translates natural language descriptions into executable workflows, automatically predicting both the structure and detailed configuration of the flow. At its core lies a Classifier-Augmented Generation (CAG) approach that combines utterance decomposition with a classifier and stage-specific few-shot prompting to produce accurate stage predictions. These stages are then connected into non-linear workflows using edge prediction, and stage properties are inferred from sub-utterance context. We compare CAG against strong single-prompt and agentic baselines, showing improved accuracy and efficiency, while substantially reducing token usage. Our architecture is modular, interpretable, and capable of end-to-end workflow generation, including robust validation steps. To our knowledge, this is the first system with a detailed evaluation across stage prediction, edge layout, and property generation for natural-language-driven ETL authoring.