Large language models (LLMs) exhibit increasingly sophisticated linguistic capabilities, yet the extent to which these behaviors reflect human-like cognition versus advanced pattern recognition remains an open question. In this study, we investigate how LLMs process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies. Using an Expert-in-the-Loop probing pipeline, we conduct a series of targeted experiments to assess whether LLMs construct semantic representations and pragmatic inferences in a human-like manner. Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect, raising concerns about their ability to fully comprehend narratives. These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding. Beyond these empirical findings, we develop a standardized experimental framework for the reliable assessment of LLMs' cognitive and linguistic capabilities.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate or augment penetration testing, but their effectiveness and reliability across attack phases remain unclear. We present a comprehensive evaluation of multiple LLM-based agents, from single-agent to modular designs, across realistic penetration testing scenarios, measuring empirical performance and recurring failure patterns. We also isolate the impact of five core functional capabilities via targeted augmentations: Global Context Memory (GCM), Inter-Agent Messaging (IAM), Context-Conditioned Invocation (CCI), Adaptive Planning (AP), and Real-Time Monitoring (RTM). These interventions support, respectively: (i) context coherence and retention, (ii) inter-component coordination and state management, (iii) tool use accuracy and selective execution, (iv) multi-step strategic planning, error detection, and recovery, and (v) real-time dynamic responsiveness. Our results show that while some architectures natively exhibit subsets of these properties, targeted augmentations substantially improve modular agent performance, especially in complex, multi-step, and real-time penetration testing tasks.

Polite speech poses a fundamental alignment challenge for large language models (LLMs). Humans deploy a rich repertoire of linguistic strategies to balance informational and social goals -- from positive approaches that build rapport (compliments, expressions of interest) to negative strategies that minimize imposition (hedging, indirectness). We investigate whether LLMs employ a similarly context-sensitive repertoire by comparing human and LLM responses in both constrained and open-ended production tasks. We find that larger models ($\ge$70B parameters) successfully replicate key preferences from the computational pragmatics literature, and human evaluators surprisingly prefer LLM-generated responses in open-ended contexts. However, further linguistic analyses reveal that models disproportionately rely on negative politeness strategies even in positive contexts, potentially leading to misinterpretations. While modern LLMs demonstrate an impressive handle on politeness strategies, these subtle differences raise important questions about pragmatic alignment in AI systems.

Accurate detection of errors in large language models (LLM) responses is central to the success of scalable oversight, or providing effective supervision to superhuman intelligence. Yet, self-diagnosis is often unreliable on complex tasks unless aided by reliable external feedback. Multi-agent debate (MAD) seems to be a natural alternative to external feedback: multiple LLMs provide complementary perspectives and cross-checks for error detection. However, prior MAD protocols frame debate as a zero-sum game, where the debaters compete to win the game instead of seeking the truth. Consequently, it leads to debate hacking: debaters tend to mislead the judge by misinterpreting the task or presenting overconfident claims, which introduce more mistakes and underperform single-agent methods. To mitigate the issue, we introduce a new collaborative MAD protocol, termed ColMAD, that reframes MAD as a non-zero sum game. Specifically, ColMAD encourages multiple agents to criticize each other in a supportive way, such that they can complement the missing points of each other. Therefore, the judge agent can make a more informative conclusion based on more comprehensive evidence. Empirically, we show that ColMAD significantly outperforms previous competitive MAD by 19% and brings non-trivial improvements over single-agent methods in error detection.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly incorporated into everyday life for many internet users, taking on significant roles as advice givers in the domains of medicine, personal relationships, and even legal matters. The importance of these roles raise questions about how and what responses LLMs make in difficult political and moral domains, especially questions about possible biases. To quantify the nature of potential biases in LLMs, various works have applied Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), a framework that categorizes human moral reasoning into five dimensions: Harm, Fairness, Ingroup Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Previous research has used the MFT to measure differences in human participants along political, national, and cultural lines. While there has been some analysis of the responses of LLM with respect to political stance in role-playing scenarios, no work so far has directly assessed the moral leanings in the LLM responses, nor have they connected LLM outputs with robust human data. In this paper we analyze the distinctions between LLM MFT responses and existing human research directly, investigating whether commonly available LLM responses demonstrate ideological leanings: either through their inherent responses, straightforward representations of political ideologies, or when responding from the perspectives of constructed human personas. We assess whether LLMs inherently generate responses that align more closely with one political ideology over another, and additionally examine how accurately LLMs can represent ideological perspectives through both explicit prompting and demographic-based role-playing. By systematically analyzing LLM behavior across these conditions and experiments, our study provides insight into the extent of political and demographic dependency in AI-generated responses.

Large Language Models (LLMs) should answer factual questions truthfully, grounded in objective knowledge, regardless of user context such as self-disclosed personal information, or system personalization. In this paper, we present the first systematic evaluation of LLM robustness to inquiry personas, i.e. user profiles that convey attributes like identity, expertise, or belief. While prior work has primarily focused on adversarial inputs or distractors for robustness testing, we evaluate plausible, human-centered inquiry persona cues that users disclose in real-world interactions. We find that such cues can meaningfully alter QA accuracy and trigger failure modes such as refusals, hallucinated limitations, and role confusion. These effects highlight how model sensitivity to user framing can compromise factual reliability, and position inquiry persona testing as an effective tool for robustness evaluation.

Future self-adaptive robots are expected to operate in highly dynamic environments while effectively managing uncertainties. However, identifying the sources and impacts of uncertainties in such robotic systems and defining appropriate mitigation strategies is challenging due to the inherent complexity of self-adaptive robots and the lack of comprehensive knowledge about the various factors influencing uncertainty. Hence, practitioners often rely on intuition and past experiences from similar systems to address uncertainties. In this article, we evaluate the potential of large language models (LLMs) in enabling a systematic and automated approach to identify uncertainties in self-adaptive robotics throughout the software engineering lifecycle. For this evaluation, we analyzed 10 advanced LLMs with varying capabilities across four industrial-sized robotics case studies, gathering the practitioners' perspectives on the LLM-generated responses related to uncertainties. Results showed that practitioners agreed with 63-88% of the LLM responses and expressed strong interest in the practicality of LLMs for this purpose.

With LLM usage becoming widespread across countries, languages, and humanity more broadly, the need to understand and guardrail their multilingual responses increases. Large-scale datasets for testing and benchmarking have been created to evaluate and facilitate LLM responses across multiple dimensions. In this study, we evaluate the responses of frontier and leading open-source models in five dimensions across low and high-resource languages to measure LLM accuracy and consistency across multilingual contexts. We evaluate the responses using a five-point grading rubric and a judge LLM. Our study shows that GPT -5 performed the best on average in each category, while other models displayed more inconsistency across language and category. Most notably, in the Consent & Autonomy and Harm Prevention & Safety categories, GPT scored the highest with averages of 3.56 and 4.73, while Gemini 2.5 Pro scored the lowest with averages of 1.39 and 1.98, respectively. These findings emphasize the need for further testing on how linguistic shifts impact LLM responses across various categories and improvement in these areas.

Electroencephalography (EEG) interpretation using multimodal large language models (MLLMs) offers a novel approach for analyzing brain signals. However, the complex nature of brain activity introduces critical challenges: EEG signals simultaneously encode both cognitive processes and intrinsic neural states, creating a mismatch in EEG paired-data modality that hinders effective cross-modal representation learning. Through a pivot investigation, we uncover complementary relationships between these modalities. Leveraging this insight, we propose mapping EEG signals and their corresponding modalities into a unified semantic space to achieve generalized interpretation. To fully enable conversational capabilities, we further introduce WaveMind-Instruct-338k, the first cross-task EEG dataset for instruction tuning. The resulting model demonstrates robust classification accuracy while supporting flexible, open-ended conversations across four downstream tasks, thereby offering valuable insights for both neuroscience research and the development of general-purpose EEG models.

Existing studies on bias mitigation methods for large language models (LLMs) use diverse baselines and metrics to evaluate debiasing performance, leading to inconsistent comparisons among them. Moreover, their evaluations are mostly based on the comparison between LLMs' probabilities of biased and unbiased contexts, which ignores the gap between such evaluations and real-world use cases where users interact with LLMs by reading model responses and expect fair and safe outputs rather than LLMs' probabilities. To enable consistent evaluation across debiasing methods and bridge this gap, we introduce BiasFreeBench, an empirical benchmark that comprehensively compares eight mainstream bias mitigation techniques (covering four prompting-based and four training-based methods) on two test scenarios (multi-choice QA and open-ended multi-turn QA) by reorganizing existing datasets into a unified query-response setting. We further introduce a response-level metric, Bias-Free Score, to measure the extent to which LLM responses are fair, safe, and anti-stereotypical. Debiasing performances are systematically compared and analyzed across key dimensions: the prompting vs. training paradigm, model size, and generalization of different training strategies to unseen bias types. We will publicly release our benchmark, aiming to establish a unified testbed for bias mitigation research.