AI-assisted gait analysis holds promise for improving Parkinson's Disease (PD) care, but current clinical dashboards lack transparency and offer no meaningful way for clinicians to interrogate or contest AI decisions. To address this issue, we present Motion2Meaning, a clinician-centered framework that advances Contestable AI through a tightly integrated interface designed for interpretability, oversight, and procedural recourse. Our approach leverages vertical Ground Reaction Force (vGRF) time-series data from wearable sensors as an objective biomarker of PD motor states. The system comprises three key components: a Gait Data Visualization Interface (GDVI), a one-dimensional Convolutional Neural Network (1D-CNN) that predicts Hoehn & Yahr severity stages, and a Contestable Interpretation Interface (CII) that combines our novel Cross-Modal Explanation Discrepancy (XMED) safeguard with a contestable Large Language Model (LLM). Our 1D-CNN achieves 89.0% F1-score on the public PhysioNet gait dataset. XMED successfully identifies model unreliability by detecting a five-fold increase in explanation discrepancies in incorrect predictions (7.45%) compared to correct ones (1.56%), while our LLM-powered interface enables clinicians to validate correct predictions and successfully contest a portion of the model's errors. A human-centered evaluation of this contestable interface reveals a crucial trade-off between the LLM's factual grounding and its readability and responsiveness to clinical feedback. This work demonstrates the feasibility of combining wearable sensor analysis with Explainable AI (XAI) and contestable LLMs to create a transparent, auditable system for PD gait interpretation that maintains clinical oversight while leveraging advanced AI capabilities. Our implementation is publicly available at: https://github.com/hungdothanh/motion2meaning.

We investigate how large language models (LLMs) fail when operating as autonomous agents with tool-use capabilities. Using the Kamiwaza Agentic Merit Index (KAMI) v0.1 benchmark, we analyze 900 execution traces from three representative models - Granite 4 Small, Llama 4 Maverick, and DeepSeek V3.1 - across filesystem, text extraction, CSV analysis, and SQL scenarios. Rather than focusing on aggregate scores, we perform fine-grained, per-trial behavioral analysis to surface the strategies that enable successful multi-step tool execution and the recurrent failure modes that undermine reliability. Our findings show that model scale alone does not predict agentic robustness: Llama 4 Maverick (400B) performs only marginally better than Granite 4 Small (32B) in some uncertainty-driven tasks, while DeepSeek V3.1's superior reliability derives primarily from post-training reinforcement learning rather than architecture or size. Across models, we identify four recurring failure archetypes: premature action without grounding, over-helpfulness that substitutes missing entities, vulnerability to distractor-induced context pollution, and fragile execution under load. These patterns highlight the need for agentic evaluation methods that emphasize interactive grounding, recovery behavior, and environment-aware adaptation, suggesting that reliable enterprise deployment requires not just stronger models but deliberate training and design choices that reinforce verification, constraint discovery, and adherence to source-of-truth data.

Although persona prompting in large language models appears to trigger different styles of generated text, it is unclear whether these translate into measurable behavioral differences, much less whether they affect decision-making in an adversarial strategic environment that we provide as open-source. We investigate the impact of persona prompting on strategic performance in PERIL, a world-domination board game. Specifically, we compare the effectiveness of persona-derived heuristic strategies to those chosen manually. Our findings reveal that certain personas associated with strategic thinking improve game performance, but only when a mediator is used to translate personas into heuristic values. We introduce this mediator as a structured translation process, inspired by exploratory factor analysis, that maps LLM-generated inventory responses into heuristics. Results indicate our method enhances heuristic reliability and face validity compared to directly inferred heuristics, allowing us to better study the effect of persona types on decision making. These insights advance our understanding of how persona prompting influences LLM-based decision-making and propose a heuristic generation method that applies psychometric principles to LLMs.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into everyday life and information ecosystems, concerns about their implicit biases continue to persist. While prior work has primarily examined socio-demographic and left--right political dimensions, little attention has been paid to how LLMs align with broader geopolitical value systems, particularly the democracy--authoritarianism spectrum. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology to assess such alignment, combining (1) the F-scale, a psychometric tool for measuring authoritarian tendencies, (2) FavScore, a newly introduced metric for evaluating model favorability toward world leaders, and (3) role-model probing to assess which figures are cited as general role-models by LLMs. We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increased favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin. Further, models are found to often cite authoritarian figures as role models, even outside explicit political contexts. These results shed light on ways LLMs may reflect and potentially reinforce global political ideologies, highlighting the importance of evaluating bias beyond conventional socio-political axes. Our code is available at: https://github.com/irenestrauss/Democratic-Authoritarian-Bias-LLMs.

We introduce a novel framework for measuring Overton pluralism in LLMs--the extent to which diverse viewpoints are represented in model outputs. We (i) formalize Overton pluralism as a set coverage metric (OvertonScore), (ii) conduct a large-scale U.S.-representative human study (N = 1209; 60 questions; 8 LLMs), and (iii) develop an automated benchmark that closely reproduces human judgments. On average, models achieve OvertonScores of 0.35--0.41, with DeepSeek V3 performing best; yet all models remain far below the theoretical maximum of 1.0, revealing substantial headroom for improvement. Because repeated large-scale human studies are costly and slow, scalable evaluation tools are essential for model development. Hence, we propose an automated benchmark that achieves high rank correlation with human judgments ($ρ=0.88$), providing a practical proxy without replacing human assessment. By turning pluralistic alignment from a normative aim into a measurable benchmark, our work establishes a foundation for systematic progress toward more pluralistic LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong translation abilities through prompting, even without task-specific training. However, their effectiveness in dialectal and low-resource contexts remains underexplored. This study presents the first systematic investigation of LLM-based machine translation (MT) for Sylheti, a dialect of Bangla that is itself low-resource. We evaluate five advanced LLMs (GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1, LLaMA 4, Grok 3, and DeepSeek V3.2) across both translation directions (Bangla $\Leftrightarrow$ Sylheti), and find that these models struggle with dialect-specific vocabulary. To address this, we introduce Sylheti-CAP (Context-Aware Prompting), a three-step framework that embeds a linguistic rulebook, a dictionary (2{,}260 core vocabulary items and idioms), and an authenticity check directly into prompts. Extensive experiments show that Sylheti-CAP consistently improves translation quality across models and prompting strategies. Both automatic metrics and human evaluations confirm its effectiveness, while qualitative analysis reveals notable reductions in hallucinations, ambiguities, and awkward phrasing, establishing Sylheti-CAP as a scalable solution for dialectal and low-resource MT. Dataset link: \href{https://github.com/TabiaTanzin/LLMs-for-Low-Resource-Dialect-Translation-Using-Context-Aware-Prompting-A-Case-Study-on-Sylheti.git}{https://github.com/TabiaTanzin/LLMs-for-Low-Resource-Dialect-Translation-Using-Context-Aware-Prompting-A-Case-Study-on-Sylheti.git}

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has led to impressive performance on a range of tasks, yet advanced instruction following (IF)-especially for complex, multi-turn, and system-prompted instructions-remains a significant challenge. Rigorous evaluation and effective training for such capabilities are hindered by the lack of high-quality, human-annotated benchmarks and reliable, interpretable reward signals. In this work, we introduce AdvancedIF (we will release this benchmark soon), a comprehensive benchmark featuring over 1,600 prompts and expert-curated rubrics that assess LLMs ability to follow complex, multi-turn, and system-level instructions. We further propose RIFL (Rubric-based Instruction-Following Learning), a novel post-training pipeline that leverages rubric generation, a finetuned rubric verifier, and reward shaping to enable effective reinforcement learning for instruction following. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RIFL substantially improves the instruction-following abilities of LLMs, achieving a 6.7% absolute gain on AdvancedIF and strong results on public benchmarks. Our ablation studies confirm the effectiveness of each component in RIFL. This work establishes rubrics as a powerful tool for both training and evaluating advanced IF in LLMs, paving the way for more capable and reliable AI systems.

How do Large Language Models understand moral dimensions compared to humans? This first large-scale Bayesian evaluation of market-leading language models provides the answer. In contrast to prior work using deterministic ground truth (majority or inclusion rules), we model annotator disagreements to capture both aleatoric uncertainty (inherent human disagreement) and epistemic uncertainty (model domain sensitivity). We evaluated the best language models (Claude Sonnet 4, DeepSeek-V3, Llama 4 Maverick) across 250K+ annotations from nearly 700 annotators in 100K+ texts spanning social networks, news and forums. Our GPU-optimized Bayesian framework processed 1M+ model queries, revealing that AI models typically rank among the top 25\% of human annotators, performing much better than average balanced accuracy. Importantly, we find that AI produces far fewer false negatives than humans, highlighting their more sensitive moral detection capabilities.

While small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks, their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs). Prior work on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks typically relies on comparing candidate answers against ground-truth labels or other candidate answers using predefined metrics like entailment. However, this approach is inherently indirect and difficult to fully automate, offering limited support for fine-grained and scalable evaluation of reasoning outputs. In this work, we propose JudgeBoard, a novel evaluation pipeline that directly queries models to assess the correctness of candidate answers without requiring extra answer comparisons. We focus on two core reasoning domains: mathematical reasoning and science/commonsense reasoning, and construct task-specific evaluation leaderboards using both accuracy-based ranking and an Elo-based rating system across five benchmark datasets, enabling consistent model comparison as judges rather than comparators. To improve judgment performance in lightweight models, we propose MAJ (Multi-Agent Judging), a novel multi-agent evaluation framework that leverages multiple interacting SLMs with distinct reasoning profiles to approximate LLM-level judgment accuracy through collaborative deliberation. Experimental results reveal a significant performance gap between SLMs and LLMs in isolated judging tasks. However, our MAJ framework substantially improves the reliability and consistency of SLMs. On the MATH dataset, MAJ using smaller-sized models as backbones performs comparatively well or even better than their larger-sized counterparts. Our findings highlight that multi-agent SLM systems can potentially match or exceed LLM performance in judgment tasks, with implications for scalable and efficient assessment.

The evolution of mathematics has been guided in part by interestingness. From researchers choosing which problems to tackle next, to students deciding which ones to engage with, people's choices are often guided by judgments about how interesting or challenging problems are likely to be. As AI systems, such as LLMs, increasingly participate in mathematics with people -- whether for advanced research or education -- it becomes important to understand how well their judgments align with human ones. Our work examines this alignment through two empirical studies of human and LLM assessment of mathematical interestingness and difficulty, spanning a range of mathematical experience. We study two groups: participants from a crowdsourcing platform and International Math Olympiad competitors. We show that while many LLMs appear to broadly agree with human notions of interestingness, they mostly do not capture the distribution observed in human judgments. Moreover, most LLMs only somewhat align with why humans find certain math problems interesting, showing weak correlation with human-selected interestingness rationales. Together, our findings highlight both the promises and limitations of current LLMs in capturing human interestingness judgments for mathematical AI thought partnerships.