arXiv subjects

Abhilasha Ravichander

Publications and source records attributed to Abhilasha Ravichander.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Characterizing Web Search by Conversational LLM Agents: From Search Decisions and Strategies to Results and Responses

Conversational LLM agents increasingly rely on Web search, yet the end-to-end lifecycle of agentic search remains poorly understood. We present the first study of Web search across four major conversational platforms (ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and DeepSeek), combining real-world user interactions (invivo) with controlled experiments using the same platform's models by their APIs (invitro). We investigate the quality of agentic decisions to invoke Web search, their strategies to formulate queries, the potential domain preferences in the search results they receive, and the choices they make when transforming search results into grounded responses. We find that Web-search decisions vary substantially across platforms and models, while more frequent Web-search invocation does not necessarily yield better response quality. We further show that conversational agents employ different complex querying strategies and that platform specific search engines return search results from their preferred domains. Finally, although responses are largely grounded in search results, some claims rely on uncited search results, raising concerns about attribution and reliability. Our findings have important implications for the design of future AI agents and Web search tools optimized for conversational retrieval.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Human-AI Co-Creativity: Advances, Opportunities, and Challenges

This survey article has grown out of the human-AI co-creativity workshop organized by the authors at the ICML 2026 conference. We organized this workshop as part of a community-building effort to bring together researchers and practitioners interested in topics of generative AI, creativity, and human-AI co-creation. This article aims to provide an overview of the workshop activities and highlight several future research directions in the area of human-AI co-creativity.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

To Call or Not to Call: A Framework to Assess and Optimize LLM Tool Calling

Agentic AI architectures augment LLMs with external tools, unlocking strong capabilities but potentially incurring substantial costs. Moreover, tool use is not always beneficial: redundant or low-utility calls can even harm task performance. Effective tool use, therefore, hinges on a core LLM decision: whether to call or not call a tool when performing a task. We introduce a principled framework inspired by decision-making theory to understand tool-use decisions along three key factors: necessity, utility, and affordability. Our analysis combines two complementary lenses: a normative perspective that infers true need and utility for optimal tool calls, and a descriptive perspective that infers the model's self-perceived need and utility from their observed behaviors. We evaluate six open models and a proprietary OpenAI model across native and customized harnesses, two tools, and six tasks. Models' perceived need and utility remain misaligned with their true values, particularly under budget constraints. This misalignment produces both costly overuse and performance-degrading calls. To improve the tool decisions, we train lightweight latent estimators of need (LNEs) from model hidden states. LNEs generally predict true need more accurately than model self-reports and improve budgeted tool allocation across model scales and tool types. Code and dataset available at https://github.com/QinyuanWu0710/ToCall_or_NotToCall.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Revisiting the Past: Data Unlearning with Model State History

Large language models are trained on massive corpora of web data, which may include private data, copyrighted material, factually inaccurate data, or data that degrades model performance. Eliminating the influence of such problematic datapoints on a model through complete retraining -- by repeatedly pretraining the model on datasets that exclude these specific instances -- is computationally prohibitive. To address this, unlearning algorithms have been proposed, that aim to eliminate the influence of particular datapoints at a low computational cost, while leaving the rest of the model intact. However, precisely unlearning the influence of data on a large language model has proven to be a major challenge. In this work, we propose a new algorithm, MSA (Model State Arithmetic), for unlearning datapoints in large language models. MSA utilizes prior model checkpoints -- artifacts that record model states at different stages of pretraining -- to estimate and counteract the effect of targeted datapoints. Our experimental results show that MSA achieves competitive performance and often outperforms existing machine unlearning algorithms across multiple benchmarks, models, and evaluation metrics, suggesting that MSA could be an effective approach towards more flexible large language models that are capable of data erasure.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Surprising Effectiveness of Membership Inference with Simple N-Gram Coverage

Membership inference attacks serves as useful tool for fair use of language models, such as detecting potential copyright infringement and auditing data leakage. However, many current state-of-the-art attacks require access to models' hidden states or probability distribution, which prevents investigation into more widely-used, API-access only models like GPT-4. In this work, we introduce N-Gram Coverage Attack, a membership inference attack that relies solely on text outputs from the target model, enabling attacks on completely black-box models. We leverage the observation that models are more likely to memorize and subsequently generate text patterns that were commonly observed in their training data. Specifically, to make a prediction on a candidate member, N-Gram Coverage Attack first obtains multiple model generations conditioned on a prefix of the candidate. It then uses n-gram overlap metrics to compute and aggregate the similarities of these outputs with the ground truth suffix; high similarities indicate likely membership. We first demonstrate on a diverse set of existing benchmarks that N-Gram Coverage Attack outperforms other black-box methods while also impressively achieving comparable or even better performance to state-of-the-art white-box attacks - despite having access to only text outputs. Interestingly, we find that the success rate of our method scales with the attack compute budget - as we increase the number of sequences generated from the target model conditioned on the prefix, attack performance tends to improve. Having verified the accuracy of our method, we use it to investigate previously unstudied closed OpenAI models on multiple domains. We find that more recent models, such as GPT-4o, exhibit increased robustness to membership inference, suggesting an evolving trend toward improved privacy protections.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Fractional Rotation, Full Potential? Investigating Performance and Convergence of Partial RoPE

Rotary Positional Embedding (RoPE) is a common choice in transformer architectures for encoding relative positional information. Although earlier work has examined omitting RoPE in specific layers, the effect of varying the fraction of hidden dimensions that receive rotary transformations remains largely unexplored. This design choice can yield substantial memory savings, which becomes especially significant at long context lengths. We find up to 10x memory savings over the standard RoPE cache, while achieving comparable final loss. In this work, we present a systematic study examining the impact of partial RoPE on training dynamics and convergence across architectures and datasets. Our findings uncover several notable patterns: (1) applying RoPE to only a small fraction of dimensions (around 10%) achieves convergence comparable to using full RoPE; (2) these trends hold consistently across model size, sequence lengths and datasets of varying quality and architectures, with higher-quality data resulting in lower overall loss and similar benchmark performance; and (3) some models trained with NoPE (No Positional Encoding) showcase unstable learning trajectories, which can be alleviated through minimal RoPE application or QK-Norm which converges to a higher loss. Together, these results offer practical guidance for model designers aiming to balance efficiency and training stability, while emphasizing the previously overlooked importance of partial RoPE.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

In Agents We Trust, but Who Do Agents Trust? Latent Source Preferences Steer LLM Generations

Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms. These agents filter, prioritize, and synthesize information retrieved from the platforms' back-end databases or via web search. In these scenarios, LLM agents govern the information users receive, by drawing users' attention to particular instances of retrieved information at the expense of others. While much prior work has focused on biases in the information LLMs themselves generate, less attention has been paid to the factors that influence what information LLMs select and present to users. We hypothesize that when information is attributed to specific sources (e.g., particular publishers, journals, or platforms), current LLMs exhibit systematic latent source preferences- that is, they prioritize information from some sources over others. Through controlled experiments on twelve LLMs from six model providers, spanning both synthetic and real-world tasks, we find that several models consistently exhibit strong and predictable source preferences. These preferences are sensitive to contextual framing, can outweigh the influence of content itself, and persist despite explicit prompting to avoid them. They also help explain phenomena such as the observed left-leaning skew in news recommendations in prior work. Our findings advocate for deeper investigation into the origins of these preferences, as well as for mechanisms that provide users with transparency and control over the biases guiding LLM-powered agents.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

What Has Been Lost with Synthetic Evaluation?

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for data generation. However, creating evaluation benchmarks raises the bar for this emerging paradigm. Benchmarks must target specific phenomena, penalize exploiting shortcuts, and be challenging. Through two case studies, we investigate whether LLMs can meet these demands by generating reasoning over-text benchmarks and comparing them to those created through careful crowdsourcing. Specifically, we evaluate both the validity and difficulty of LLM-generated versions of two high-quality reading comprehension datasets: CondaQA, which evaluates reasoning about negation, and DROP, which targets reasoning about quantities. We find that prompting LLMs can produce variants of these datasets that are often valid according to the annotation guidelines, at a fraction of the cost of the original crowdsourcing effort. However, we show that they are less challenging for LLMs than their human-authored counterparts. This finding sheds light on what may have been lost by generating evaluation data with LLMs, and calls for critically reassessing the immediate use of this increasingly prevalent approach to benchmark creation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

The Curious Case of Factuality Finetuning: Models' Internal Beliefs Can Improve Factuality

Language models are prone to hallucination - generating text that is factually incorrect. Finetuning models on high-quality factual information can potentially reduce hallucination, but concerns remain; obtaining factual gold data can be expensive and training on correct but unfamiliar data may potentially lead to even more downstream hallucination. What data should practitioners finetune on to mitigate hallucinations in language models? In this work, we study the relationship between the factuality of finetuning data and the prevalence of hallucinations in long-form generation tasks. Counterintuitively, we find that finetuning on factual gold data is not as helpful as finetuning on model-generated data that models believe to be factual. Next, we evaluate filtering strategies applied on both factual gold data and model-generated data, and find that finetuning on model-generated data that is filtered by models' own internal judgments often leads to better overall factuality compared to other configurations: training on gold data filtered by models' judgments, training on gold data alone, or training on model-generated data that is supported by gold data. These factuality improvements transfer across three domains we study, suggesting that a models' own beliefs can provide a powerful signal for factuality.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

RESTOR: Knowledge Recovery in Machine Unlearning

Large language models trained on web-scale corpora can memorize undesirable data containing misinformation, copyrighted material, or private or sensitive information. Recently, several machine unlearning algorithms have been proposed to eliminate the effect of such datapoints from trained models -- that is, to approximate a model that had never been trained on these datapoints in the first place. However, evaluating the effectiveness of unlearning algorithms remains an open challenge. Previous work has relied on heuristics -- such as verifying that the model can no longer reproduce the specific information targeted for removal while maintaining accuracy on unrelated test data. These approaches inadequately capture the complete effect of reversing the influence of datapoints on a trained model. In this work, we propose the RESTOR framework for machine unlearning evaluation, which assesses the ability of unlearning algorithms for targeted data erasure, by evaluating the ability of models to forget the knowledge introduced in these datapoints, while simultaneously recovering the model's knowledge state had it never encountered these datapoints. RESTOR helps uncover several novel insights about popular unlearning algorithms, and the mechanisms through which they operate -- for instance, identifying that some algorithms merely emphasize forgetting but not recovering knowledge, and that localizing unlearning targets can enhance unlearning performance.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Why and How LLMs Hallucinate: Connecting the Dots with Subsequence Associations

Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate hallucinations-content that deviates from factual accuracy or provided context-posing challenges for diagnosis due to the complex interplay of underlying causes. This paper introduces a subsequence association framework to systematically trace and understand hallucinations. Our key insight is that hallucinations arise when dominant hallucinatory associations outweigh faithful ones. Through theoretical and empirical analyses, we demonstrate that decoder-only transformers effectively function as subsequence embedding models, with linear layers encoding input-output associations. We propose a tracing algorithm that identifies causal subsequences by analyzing hallucination probabilities across randomized input contexts. Experiments show our method outperforms standard attribution techniques in identifying hallucination causes and aligns with evidence from the model's training corpus. This work provides a unified perspective on hallucinations and a robust framework for their tracing and analysis.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Information-Guided Identification of Training Data Imprint in (Proprietary) Large Language Models

High-quality training data has proven crucial for developing performant large language models (LLMs). However, commercial LLM providers disclose few, if any, details about the data used for training. This lack of transparency creates multiple challenges: it limits external oversight and inspection of LLMs for issues such as copyright infringement, it undermines the agency of data authors, and it hinders scientific research on critical issues such as data contamination and data selection. How can we recover what training data is known to LLMs? In this work, we demonstrate a new method to identify training data known to proprietary LLMs like GPT-4 without requiring any access to model weights or token probabilities, by using information-guided probes. Our work builds on a key observation: text passages with high surprisal are good search material for memorization probes. By evaluating a model's ability to successfully reconstruct high-surprisal tokens in text, we can identify a surprising number of texts memorized by LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

MacGyver: Are Large Language Models Creative Problem Solvers?

We explore the creative problem-solving capabilities of modern LLMs in a novel constrained setting. To this end, we create MACGYVER, an automatically generated dataset consisting of over 1,600 real-world problems deliberately designed to trigger innovative usage of objects and necessitate out-of-the-box thinking. We then present our collection to both LLMs and humans to compare and contrast their problem-solving abilities. MACGYVER is challenging for both groups, but in unique and complementary ways. For instance, humans excel in tasks they are familiar with but struggle with domain-specific knowledge, leading to a higher variance. In contrast, LLMs, exposed to a variety of specialized knowledge, attempt broader problems but fail by proposing physically-infeasible actions. Finally, we provide a detailed error analysis of LLMs, and demonstrate the potential of enhancing their problem-solving ability with novel prompting techniques such as iterative step-wise reflection and divergent-convergent thinking. This work (1) introduces a fresh arena for intelligent agents focusing on intricate aspects of physical reasoning, planning, and unconventional thinking, which supplements the existing spectrum of machine intelligence; and (2) provides insight into the constrained problem-solving capabilities of both humans and AI.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Reverse Question Answering: Can an LLM Write a Question so Hard (or Bad) that it Can't Answer?

Question answering (QA), giving correct answers to questions, is a popular task, but we test reverse question answering (RQA): for an input answer, give a question with that answer. Past work tests QA and RQA separately, but we test them jointly, comparing their difficulty, aiding benchmark design, and checking reasoning consistency. We run 16 LLMs on QA and RQA with trivia questions/answers, revealing: 1) Versus QA, LLMs are much less accurate in RQA for numerical answers, but slightly more accurate in RQA for textual answers; 2) LLMs often answer their own invalid questions from RQA accurately in QA, so RQA errors are not from knowledge gaps alone; 3) RQA errors correlate with question difficulty and inversely correlate with answer frequencies in the Dolma corpus; and 4) LLMs struggle to provide valid multi-hop questions. By finding question and answer types that lead to RQA errors, we suggest improvements for LLM reasoning.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

HALoGEN: Fantastic LLM Hallucinations and Where to Find Them

Despite their impressive ability to generate high-quality and fluent text, generative large language models (LLMs) also produce hallucinations: statements that are misaligned with established world knowledge or provided input context. However, measuring hallucination can be challenging, as having humans verify model generations on-the-fly is both expensive and time-consuming. In this work, we release HALoGEN, a comprehensive hallucination benchmark consisting of: (1) 10,923 prompts for generative models spanning nine domains including programming, scientific attribution, and summarization, and (2) automatic high-precision verifiers for each use case that decompose LLM generations into atomic units, and verify each unit against a high-quality knowledge source. We use this framework to evaluate ~150,000 generations from 14 language models, finding that even the best-performing models are riddled with hallucinations (sometimes up to 86% of generated atomic facts depending on the domain). We further define a novel error classification for LLM hallucinations based on whether they likely stem from incorrect recollection of training data (Type A errors), or incorrect knowledge in training data (Type B errors), or are fabrication (Type C errors). We hope our framework provides a foundation to enable the principled study of why generative models hallucinate, and advances the development of trustworthy large language models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

The Art of Saying No: Contextual Noncompliance in Language Models

Chat-based language models are designed to be helpful, yet they should not comply with every user request. While most existing work primarily focuses on refusal of "unsafe" queries, we posit that the scope of noncompliance should be broadened. We introduce a comprehensive taxonomy of contextual noncompliance describing when and how models should not comply with user requests. Our taxonomy spans a wide range of categories including incomplete, unsupported, indeterminate, and humanizing requests (in addition to unsafe requests). To test noncompliance capabilities of language models, we use this taxonomy to develop a new evaluation suite of 1000 noncompliance prompts. We find that most existing models show significantly high compliance rates in certain previously understudied categories with models like GPT-4 incorrectly complying with as many as 30% of requests. To address these gaps, we explore different training strategies using a synthetically-generated training set of requests and expected noncompliant responses. Our experiments demonstrate that while direct finetuning of instruction-tuned models can lead to both over-refusal and a decline in general capabilities, using parameter efficient methods like low rank adapters helps to strike a good balance between appropriate noncompliance and other capabilities.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild

We introduce WildBench, an automated evaluation framework designed to benchmark large language models (LLMs) using challenging, real-world user queries. WildBench consists of 1,024 tasks carefully selected from over one million human-chatbot conversation logs. For automated evaluation with WildBench, we have developed two metrics, WB-Reward and WB-Score, which are computable using advanced LLMs such as GPT-4-turbo. WildBench evaluation uses task-specific checklists to evaluate model outputs systematically and provides structured explanations that justify the scores and comparisons, resulting in more reliable and interpretable automatic judgments. WB-Reward employs fine-grained pairwise comparisons between model responses, generating five potential outcomes: much better, slightly better, slightly worse, much worse, or a tie. Unlike previous evaluations that employed a single baseline model, we selected three baseline models at varying performance levels to ensure a comprehensive pairwise evaluation. Additionally, we propose a simple method to mitigate length bias, by converting outcomes of ``slightly better/worse'' to ``tie'' if the winner response exceeds the loser one by more than $K$ characters. WB-Score evaluates the quality of model outputs individually, making it a fast and cost-efficient evaluation metric. WildBench results demonstrate a strong correlation with the human-voted Elo ratings from Chatbot Arena on hard tasks. Specifically, WB-Reward achieves a Pearson correlation of 0.98 with top-ranking models. Additionally, WB-Score reaches 0.95, surpassing both ArenaHard's 0.91 and AlpacaEval2.0's 0.89 for length-controlled win rates, as well as the 0.87 for regular win rates.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

WildHallucinations: Evaluating Long-form Factuality in LLMs with Real-World Entity Queries

While hallucinations of large language models (LLMs) prevail as a major challenge, existing evaluation benchmarks on factuality do not cover the diverse domains of knowledge that the real-world users of LLMs seek information about. To bridge this gap, we introduce WildHallucinations, a benchmark that evaluates factuality. It does so by prompting LLMs to generate information about entities mined from user-chatbot conversations in the wild. These generations are then automatically fact-checked against a systematically curated knowledge source collected from web search. Notably, half of these real-world entities do not have associated Wikipedia pages. We evaluate 118,785 generations from 15 LLMs on 7,919 entities. We find that LLMs consistently hallucinate more on entities without Wikipedia pages and exhibit varying hallucination rates across different domains. Finally, given the same base models, adding a retrieval component only slightly reduces hallucinations but does not eliminate hallucinations.

cs.CL↗