Literal Interpretation: One of the limitations is the model's tendency to interpret questions

In this section, we will describe the evaluation process in detail. We evaluated various L VLMs, including medical-specific models, open-source general models, and closed-source API general models.

Before that, it is crucial to develop benchmarks to evaluate L VLMs' effectiveness in various medical applications.

To remedy this, we introduce temporal certificate sets, a general notion for capturing the intrinsic temporal understanding length associated with a broad range of video understanding tasks & datasets.

This study presents PARROT (Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth), a robustness focused framework designed to measure the degradation in accuracy that occurs under social pressure exerted on users through authority and persuasion in large language models (LLMs) the phenomenon of sycophancy (excessive conformity). PARROT (i) isolates causal effects by comparing the neutral version of the same question with an authoritatively false version using a double-blind evaluation, (ii) quantifies confidence shifts toward the correct and imposed false responses using log-likelihood-based calibration tracking, and (iii) systematically classifies failure modes (e.g., robust correct, sycophantic agreement, reinforced error, stubborn error, self-correction, etc.) using an eight-state behavioral taxonomy. We evaluated 22 models using 1,302 MMLU-style multiple-choice questions across 13 domains and domain-specific authority templates. Findings show marked heterogeneity: advanced models (e.g., GPT-5, GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet 4.5) exhibit low "follow rates" ($\leq 11\%$, GPT-5: 4\%) and minimal accuracy loss, while older/smaller models show severe epistemic collapse (GPT-4: 80\%, Qwen 2.5-1.5B: 94\%). The danger is not limited to response changes; weak models reduce confidence in the correct response while increasing confidence in the imposed incorrect response. While international law and global knowledge at the domain level exhibit high fragility, elementary mathematics is relatively resilient. Consequently, we argue that the goal of "resistance to overfitting pressure" should be addressed as a primary objective alongside accuracy, harm avoidance, and privacy for safe deployment in the real world.

Humans invent new words when there is a rising demand for a new useful concept (e.g., doomscrolling). We explore and validate a similar idea in our communication with LLMs: introducing new words to better understand and control the models, expanding on the recently introduced neologism learning. This method introduces a new word by adding a new word embedding and training with examples that exhibit the concept with no other changes in model parameters. We show that adding a new word allows for control of concepts such as flattery, incorrect answers, text length, as well as more complex concepts in AxBench. We discover that neologisms can also further our understanding of the model via self-verbalization: models can describe what each new word means to them in natural language, like explaining that a word that represents a concept of incorrect answers means ``a lack of complete, coherent, or meaningful answers...'' To validate self-verbalizations, we introduce plug-in evaluation: we insert the verbalization into the context of a model and measure whether it controls the target concept. In some self-verbalizations, we find machine-only synonyms: words that seem unrelated to humans but cause similar behavior in machines. Finally, we show how neologism learning can jointly learn multiple concepts in multiple words.