Generative large language models (LLMs) have become central to everyday life, producing human-like text across diverse domains. A growing body of research investigates whether these models also exhibit personality- and demographic-like characteristics in their language. In this work, we introduce a novel, data-driven methodology for assessing LLM personality without relying on self-report questionnaires, applying instead automatic personality and gender classifiers to model replies on open-ended questions collected from Reddit. Comparing six widely used models to human-authored responses, we find that LLMs systematically express higher Agreeableness and lower Neuroticism, reflecting cooperative and stable conversational tendencies. Gendered language patterns in model text broadly resemble those of human writers, though with reduced variation, echoing prior findings on automated agents. We contribute a new dataset of human and model responses, along with large-scale comparative analyses, shedding new light on the topic of personality and demographic patterns of generative AI.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) display versatile functionality, they continue to generate harmful, biased, and toxic content, as demonstrated by the prevalence of human-designed jailbreaks .

Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed vibe coding, where users leverage LLMs to generate and iteratively refine code through natural language interactions until it passes their vibe check. Vibe check is tied to real-world human preference and goes beyond functionality: the solution should feel right, read cleanly, preserve intent, and remain correct. However, current code evaluation remains anchored to pass@k and captures only functional correctness, overlooking the non-functional instructions that users routinely apply. In this paper, we hypothesize that instruction following is the missing piece underlying vibe check that represents human preference in coding besides functional correctness. To quantify models' code instruction following capabilities with measurable signals, we present VeriCode, a taxonomy of 30 verifiable code instructions together with corresponding deterministic verifiers. We use the taxonomy to augment established evaluation suites, resulting in Vibe Checker, a testbed to assess both code instruction following and functional correctness. Upon evaluating 31 leading LLMs, we show that even the strongest models struggle to comply with multiple instructions and exhibit clear functional regression. Most importantly, a composite score of functional correctness and instruction following correlates the best with human preference, with the latter emerging as the primary differentiator on real-world programming tasks. Our work identifies core factors of the vibe check, providing a concrete path for benchmarking and developing models that better align with user preferences in coding.

Large vision language models (VLMs) increasingly claim reasoning skills, yet current benchmarks evaluate them in single-turn or question answering settings. However, grounding is an interactive process in which people gradually develop shared understanding through ongoing communication. We introduce a four-metric suite (grounding efficiency, content alignment, lexical adaptation, and human-likeness) to systematically evaluate VLM performance in interactive grounding contexts. We deploy the suite on 150 self-play sessions of interactive referential games between three proprietary VLMs and compare them with human dyads. All three models diverge from human patterns on at least three metrics, while GPT4o-mini is the closest overall. We find that (i) task success scores do not indicate successful grounding and (ii) high image-utterance alignment does not necessarily predict task success. Our metric suite and findings offer a framework for future research on VLM grounding.

This study examines hallucinations in Large Language Model (LLM) translations into Irish, specifically focusing on instances where the models generate novel, non-existent words. We classify these hallucinations within verb and noun categories, identifying six distinct patterns among the latter. Additionally, we analyse whether these hallucinations adhere to Irish morphological rules and what linguistic tendencies they exhibit. Our findings show that while both GPT-4.o and GPT-4.o Mini produce similar types of hallucinations, the Mini model generates them at a significantly higher frequency. Beyond classification, the discussion raises speculative questions about the implications of these hallucinations for the Irish language. Rather than seeking definitive answers, we offer food for thought regarding the increasing use of LLMs and their potential role in shaping Irish vocabulary and linguistic evolution. We aim to prompt discussion on how such technologies might influence language over time, particularly in the context of low-resource, morphologically rich languages.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in diverse applications including generation of code snippets, but often struggle with generating code for complex Machine Learning (ML) tasks. Although existing LLM single-agent based systems give varying performance depending on the task complexity, they purely rely on larger and expensive models such as GPT-4. Our investigation reveals that no-cost and low-cost models such as Gemini-Pro, Mixtral and CodeLlama perform far worse than GPT-4 in a single-agent setting. With the motivation of developing a cost-efficient LLM based solution for solving ML tasks, we propose an LLM Multi-Agent based system which leverages combination of experts using profiling, efficient retrieval of past observations, LLM cascades, and ask-the-expert calls. Through empirical analysis on ML engineering tasks in the MLAgentBench benchmark, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our system, using no-cost models, namely Gemini as the base LLM, paired with GPT-4 in cascade and expert to serve occasional ask-the-expert calls for planning. With 94.2\% reduction in the cost (from \$0.931 per run cost averaged over all tasks for GPT-4 single agent system to \$0.054), our system is able to yield better average success rate of 32.95\% as compared to GPT-4 single-agent system yielding 22.72\% success rate averaged over all the tasks of MLAgentBench.

The rapid advancements in large language models and generative artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities are making their broad application in the high-stakes testing context more likely. Use of generative AI in the scoring of constructed responses is particularly appealing because it reduces the effort required for handcrafting features in traditional AI scoring and might even outperform those methods. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the differences in the feature-based and generative AI applications in constructed response scoring systems and propose a set of best practices for the collection of validity evidence to support the use and interpretation of constructed response scores from scoring systems using generative AI. We compare the validity evidence needed in scoring systems using human ratings, feature-based natural language processing AI scoring engines, and generative AI. The evidence needed in the generative AI context is more extensive than in the feature-based NLP scoring context because of the lack of transparency and other concerns unique to generative AI such as consistency. Constructed response score data from standardized tests demonstrate the collection of validity evidence for different types of scoring systems and highlights the numerous complexities and considerations when making a validity argument for these scores. In addition, we discuss how the evaluation of AI scores might include a consideration of how a contributory scoring approach combining multiple AI scores (from different sources) will cover more of the construct in the absence of human ratings.

Managing clinical trial information is currently a significant challenge for the medical industry, as traditional methods are both time-consuming and costly. This paper proposes a simple yet effective methodology to extract and integrate clinical trial data in a cost-effective and time-efficient manner. Allowing the medical industry to stay up-to-date with medical developments. Comparing time, cost, and quality of the ontologies created by humans, GPT3.5, GPT4, and Llama3 (8b & 70b). Findings suggest that large language models (LLM) are a viable option to automate this process both from a cost and time perspective. This study underscores significant implications for medical research where real-time data integration from clinical trials could become the norm.

The rapid development of large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) has led to impressive results on academic benchmarks, primarily in widely spoken languages. However, significant gaps remain in the ability of current VLMs to handle low-resource languages and varied cultural contexts, largely due to a lack of high-quality, diverse, and safety-vetted data. Consequently, these models often struggle to understand low-resource languages and cultural nuances in a manner free from toxicity. To address these limitations, we introduce Maya, an open-source Multimodal Multilingual model. Our contributions are threefold: 1) a multilingual image-text pretraining dataset in eight languages, based on the LLaVA pretraining dataset; 2) a thorough analysis of toxicity within the LLaVA dataset, followed by the creation of a novel toxicity-free version across eight languages; and 3) a multilingual image-text model supporting these languages, enhancing cultural and linguistic comprehension in vision-language tasks. Code available at https://github.com/nahidalam/maya.