arXiv subjects

Chenhao Tan

Publications and source records attributed to Chenhao Tan.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Controversy and Group Certainty Jointly Shape Everyday Moral Judgments

Everyday moral life rarely resembles a trolley problem. It involves disputes about families, relationships, work, money, and care, situations in which people often encounter the judgments of others. We examined how judgments about nuanced interpersonal dilemmas respond to social information that conveys collective opinion without revealing the arguments behind it. Specifically, we studied two signals: controversy, the extent to which community judgments are divided between two opposing verdicts; and group certainty, the confidence expressed by each side. We derived these signals from 54,827 judgments on 135 dilemmas posted to Reddit's r/AmItheAsshole and presented them separately or together in a preregistered randomized experiment (N = 2,159). Relative to the control condition, all three treatments increased both weakening, a changed verdict or reduced confidence, and strengthening, increased confidence without a verdict change. Thus, aggregated social information can reshape moral judgments even without arguments. Controversy alone tripled the weakening rate, from 5.3% to 15.9%. Shown alone, certainty on either side was associated with movement toward that side. Shown alongside controversy, only like-minded certainty remained clearly associated with less weakening. This asymmetry of influence is double-edged: the confidence of like-minded others may help minorities resist majority pressure, but it may also insulate mistaken judgments from correction.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Emergent Misalignment Is Not Magical

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on narrowly harmful datasets can lead to misalignment broadly, a phenomenon known as emergent misalignment (EM). EM poses a challenge for AI safety and our understanding of LLMs. Prior work often frames EM as an unexpected behavior, and explains it by appealing to general misalignment directions or anthropomorphizing it as acquiring an evil persona. However, the mechanisms behind these framings remain obscure. In this work, we show that EM is a predictable and data-dependent generalization phenomenon. By examining the base model's representation of EM training data and evaluation prompts, we find that evilness after EM training is highly predictable from representational distance: the closer an evaluation prompt is to training data centroid, the more evilness it elicits from EM models after training (with an average Spearman correlation of -0.73 across 12 model-dataset settings). Building upon this analysis, we further demystify EM by showing that (1) its effectiveness changes significantly based on training data format; (2) there is not a general misalignment direction that transfers across different EM models; (3) the effect of EM is fundamentally different from persona changes. Furthermore, we extend the EM generalization metric from a scalar distance to a dataset-specific generalization direction, which robustly predicts EM models' evilness under semantics-preserving prompt perturbations including appending random tokens and paraphrasing, where other methods do not reliably generalize.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The Interaction Tax: When Communication Erases Diversity in Multi-Agent Teams

Does multi-agent LLM interaction help or hurt? Some work reports gains from debate (Du et al., 2024), critique loops (Chen et al., 2025), and mixture-of-agents synthesis (Wang et al., 2025), while other work finds that interaction adds cost without improving quality under equal budgets (Tran & Kiela, 2026; Xu et al., 2026; Jarrett et al., 2025), or that independent sampling already captures multi-agent gains (Li et al., 2024). We argue this contradiction partly reflects a missing distinction, because not all multi-agent communication is equal. Different model families find structurally different solutions, but when agents read each other's complete outputs, their proposals converge within one round, erasing the diversity that motivates using multiple models. We call this the interaction tax. We test 11 verifier-scored optimization tasks under matched budgets and find that full-solution interaction is a weak default. Independent proposal generation avoids this collapse. Full-solution interaction mainly makes agents stay close to the first solution they see instead of trying different approaches, and critique helps only if the violated rule is easy for the LLM to find and fix. These results suggest that multi-agent performance depends less on the number of agents than on the information they exchange, and interaction helps only when agents share the right information at the right time.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

Characterizing Rhetorical Misalignment in Decision-Making with Language Models

Human decision-making is often shaped by a range of well-documented cognitive biases. As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into high-stakes human-AI decision-making, it is important to understand whether their outputs can amplify potential biases, how this influences human decisions, and crucially, whether it can lead to harmful consequences. In this work, we develop a decision-theoretic framework to study rhetorical misalignment, a failure mode where an LLM uses rhetorically inappropriate forms of presentation for a given decision context, thereby inducing suboptimal human decisions. We empirically investigate this phenomenon through a human-subject experiment in realistic clinical decision-making using a dataset curated from the United States Medical Licensing Examination. By measuring how LLM-generated information affects decisions, we observe that LLMs induce an average 2.81% rate of harmful decision flips across different models, where clinician participants change from a correct to an incorrect answer. Rationales reported by participants provide evidence that these revisions are closely related to the language used by LLMs that may induce different types of cognitive biases, including anchoring, authority bias, and loss aversion. To enable scalable evaluation, we instantiate our theoretical framework using decision-makers simulated by LLMs to computationally measure rhetorical misalignment. Our findings reveal a safety concern previously unrecognized in high-stakes domains: a model can be factually aligned yet still induce harm through its rhetorical presentation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

VERITAS: Towards a General-Purpose Replication Tool for Scientific Research

AI tools are accelerating scientific publication while the systems that review it struggle to keep up, and independent verification of published research has become both harder and more important. As manual replication is slow and expensive, a growing line of work uses coding agents to automate parts of the process. Existing efforts are largely packaged as benchmarks with companion agents that only run inside the benchmark's own pipeline, and no general-purpose replication tool exists. We present VERITAS, a domain-agnostic replication framework built around CLI coding agents. Given a paper, a code repository, or both, VERITAS extracts the paper's claims, runs the methodology while resolving issues as they arise, and judges each claim against the evidence from experiment runs. The pipeline returns an importance-weighted Replication Score, a severity-rated log of every fix applied, and the patched codebase. We evaluate VERITAS on CORE-Bench and ReplicationBench, 65 papers spanning computer science, social science, medicine, and astrophysics. Against two strong Claude Code baselines on the same model and host environment, VERITAS achieves state-of-the-art performance and leads on every metric on both benchmarks.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Benchmarking Agentic Review Systems

A new class of agentic review systems are emerging as a remedy to the pressure placed on peer review systems by AI-assisted research, but it is unclear how they should be evaluated. We evaluate two open-source systems (OpenAIReview and coarse), one proprietary system (Reviewer3), and a zero-shot baseline, across six LLMs spanning frontier and efficient models. First, we study whether AI reviews on ICLR/NeurIPS papers track with papers' quality as approximated by external signals such as citations and acceptance decisions. Every system performs above chance in pairwise accuracy, and the best is OpenAIReview + GPT-5.5 at 83.0%. Second, to test whether systems can catch errors with known ground truth, we construct a perturbation benchmark that injects four categories of errors into papers across eight arXiv subject classes and measure detection recall. The strongest configuration (OpenAIReview + GPT-5.5) catches 71.6% of injected errors, leaving substantial room for improvement. The union of detections across six models reaches 83.3% recall, suggesting different models detect different errors and better harness design can potentially increase performance. Beyond these benchmarks, we study a public deployment of OpenAIReview with real users. Votes on its comments skew positive at 1.44 to 1, and the most common complaints are about false positives and minor nitpicks. Together, by evaluating full review systems backed by state-of-the-art models on real research papers, we show that while AI reviews still have room for improvement, they can already track human quality judgments well, catch important errors, and earn positive feedback from real users.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Collaborative Disagreement Resolution for Scalable Oversight

Debate, where AI agents argue opposing positions, has emerged as a key approach to scalable oversight. However, debate faces a fundamental tension: models are incentivized to be persuasive to the judge, which may not always align with epistemic honesty. In this work, we propose an alternative paradigm: disagreement resolution, which reframes the interaction mechanism from adversarial debate to collaborative truth seeking. Drawing on principles from human mediation and conflict resolution, where mediators facilitate dialogue to help disputing parties reach consensus rather than adjudicating between them, we design an automated pipeline that adapts these strategies to AI oversight. Unlike standard debate where models argue for fixed positions, our pipeline directs models to collaboratively identify points of disagreement, examine the evidence for conflicting claims, and converge toward consensus or isolate the specific ''crux'' of their disagreement. We find that Disagreement Resolution consistently helps non-expert models identify the truth, achieving 62.1% judging accuracy compared to 49.2% for standard debate. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for rethinking the scalable oversight protocol from adversarial persuasion to collaborative truth-seeking.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

CausaLab: A Scalable Environment for Interactive Causal Discovery Toward AI Scientists

We introduce CausaLab, a scalable environment for evaluating interactive causal discovery by LLM agents. Unlike prior evaluations, CausaLab evaluates both whether an agent can solve a problem using causal evidence and whether its answer is grounded in a faithful recovered causal mechanism. Each episode places an agent in a synthetic laboratory: it receives prior measurement records, intervenes on a manipulator crystal, and predicts the resonance frequency of a held-out reactor crystal governed by the same mechanism. The hidden data-generating process is a randomly sampled structural causal model (SCM), so success requires recovering both a causal graph and structural equations rather than recalling prior knowledge. Experiments show a persistent gap between prediction and mechanism recovery: in the purely observational 6-node setting, GPT-5.2-high reaches 92% task accuracy but only 0.471 all-edge $F_1$. Mixed observation-intervention strategies improve structural fidelity, while pure intervention remains difficult even for strong agents. We identify premature stopping as a major weakness and show that consistency verification mitigates it. CausaLab therefore separates predictive success from causal understanding and exposes current LLM agents' limits as experimental causal reasoners.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Towards a Universal Causal Reasoner

Despite the importance of causal reasoning, training LLMs to reason causally remains underexplored. Existing data efforts mostly focus on benchmarking LLMs on specific aspects of causality, making them less suitable for training generalizable causal reasoners. To address this, we propose UniCo, a data generation framework that both (1) addresses 18 causal query types across Pearl's Causal Ladder and (2) translates natively symbolic examples into code and natural language forms to simulate real-world use cases where causal terms are not explicitly specified. To ensure data quality, UniCo grounds answers with exact causal inference and filters cases with reasoning shortcuts. Upon supervised finetuning with 66.6K UniCo-generated instances, Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B and Olmo-3-7B-Instruct achieve an average of 22.9% improvements across all 18 in-distribution query types, and 8.1% over state-of-the-art causal data generation frameworks on 7 established causal benchmarks outside the training distribution. More importantly, in real-world medical understanding, legal decision, and tabular reasoning, UniCo-trained models consistently display more faithful reasoning traces, outperforming the base models by an average of 20.2% in faithfulness metrics. These suggest that causality-centered training not only strengthens causal reasoning, but also equips LLMs with a causal mindset in general reasoning tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Text Uncanny Valley: Non-Monotonic Performance Degradation in LLM Information Retrieval

Existing Large Language Model (LLM) benchmarks primarily focus on syntactically correct inputs, leaving a significant gap in evaluation on imperfect text. In this work, we study how word-boundary corruption affects how LLMs detect targeted information. By inserting whitespace characters within words to break them into fragments, LLMs' detection accuracy follows a U-shaped curve with the increase in insertion rate. We refer to this curve as the Text Uncanny Valley. To explain such observation, we propose a mode transition hypothesis: LLMs operate in a word-level mode for near-normal text and a character-level mode for heavily fragmented text, with the valley marking the disordered transition where neither mode is effective. Four experiments and one analysis are consistent with this account: in-context learning fails to rescue valley-bottom performance; regularizing the perturbation substantially reduces the U-shape; a math reasoning task replicates the U-shape for Gemini 3.0 Flash but not for stronger models, suggesting the effect is attenuated when tasks rely less on exact lexical alignment; and tokenization entropy peaks before the F1 minimum, consistent with a regime-conflict interpretation. These findings reveal a failure mode invisible to clean-text benchmarks yet directly relevant to any deployment scenario involving noisy or uncurated text inputs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Iterative Finetuning is Mostly Idempotent

If a model has some behavioral tendency, such as sycophancy or misalignment, and it is trained on its own outputs, will the tendency be amplified in the next generation of models? We study this question by training a series of models where each model is finetuned on data generated by its predecessor, and the initial model is seeded with some persona or belief. We test three settings: supervised finetuning (SFT) on instruct models, synthetic document finetuning (SDF) on base models, and direct preference optimization (DPO). In the SFT and SDF settings, traits mostly decay or remain constant so that further finetuning cycles do nothing. In rare cases when amplification occurs, it generally comes at the cost of coherence. In the DPO setting, trait amplification can reliably occur when a model is continually trained with a preference for its own outputs, but vanishes when models are reinitialized at each cycle. Overall, our results suggest that amplification most likely comes from continual post-training, and limiting this stage may be an effective defense. For non-RL finetuning, trait amplification is rare and very sensitive to data quantity, making it significantly less likely to occur accidentally. Finally, the amplification-coherence tradeoff serves as a natural deterrent against trait amplification.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Personalized Benchmarking: Evaluating LLMs by Individual Preferences

With the rise in capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their deployment in real-world tasks, evaluating LLM alignment with human preferences has become an important challenge. Current benchmarks average preferences across all users to compute aggregate ratings, overlooking individual user preferences when establishing model rankings. Since users have varying preferences in different contexts, we call for personalized LLM benchmarks that rank models according to individual needs. We compute personalized model rankings using ELO ratings and Bradley-Terry coefficients for 115 active Chatbot Arena users and analyze how user query characteristics (topics and writing style) relate to LLM ranking variations. We demonstrate that individual rankings of LLM models diverge dramatically from aggregate LLM rankings, with Bradley-Terry correlations averaging only $\rho = 0.04$ (57\% of users show near-zero or negative correlation) and ELO ratings showing moderate correlation ($\rho = 0.43$). Through topic modeling and style analysis, we find users exhibit substantial heterogeneity in topical interests and communication styles, influencing their model preferences. We further show that a compact combination of topic and style features provides a useful feature space for predicting user-specific model rankings. Our results provide strong quantitative evidence that aggregate benchmarks fail to capture individual preferences for most users, and highlight the importance of developing personalized benchmarks that rank LLM models according to individual user preferences.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Keeping an Eye on AI: A Framework for Effective Human Oversight of AI Systems

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in high-risk, decision-making scenarios presents technical, safety, and normative challenges; problems that may only be ameliorated by human oversight. However, notions of human oversight lack a common foundational understanding: oversight architectures are not well defined, the roles involved remain unclear, and implementation steps are opaque. Hence, researchers and practitioners struggle to determine how to design, implement, and evaluate systems that enable effective human oversight. This paper advances a practical framework for effective human oversight of AI systems, based on a cross-disciplinary perspective that draws on insights from computer science, human-computer interaction, psychology, philosophy, and law. The core contributions are: (1) a foundational framework, with a working definition, architecture and processes for effective human oversight of AI systems; (2) an initial template for documenting oversight architectures and processes, applied to diverse domains; and (3) a synthesis of open research challenges that need to be considered in the emerging field of effective human oversight of AI systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Automatically Generating Hard Math Problems from Hypothesis-Driven Error Analysis

Numerous math benchmarks exist to evaluate LLMs' mathematical capabilities. However, most involve extensive manual effort and are difficult to scale. Consequently, they cannot keep pace with LLM development or easily provide new instances to mitigate overfitting. Some researchers have proposed automatic benchmark generation methods, but few focus on identifying the specific math concepts and skills on which LLMs are error-prone, and most can only generate category-specific benchmarks. To address these limitations, we propose a new math benchmark generation pipeline that uses AI-generated hypotheses to identify the specific math concepts and skills that LLMs struggle with, and then generates new benchmark problems targeting these weaknesses. Experiments show that hypothesis accuracy positively correlates with the difficulty of the generated problems: problems generated from the most accurate hypotheses reduce Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct's accuracy to as low as 45%, compared to 77% on the original MATH benchmark. Furthermore, our pipeline is highly adaptable and can be applied beyond math to explore a wide range of LLM capabilities, making it a valuable tool for investigating how LLMs perform across different domains.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Governance of AI-Generated Content: A Case Study on Social Media Platforms

Online platforms are seeing increasing amounts of AI-generated content -- text and other forms of media that are made or co-created with generative AI. This trend suggests platforms may need to establish governance frameworks, including policies and enforcement strategies for how users create, post, share, and engage with such content to encourage responsible use. We investigate the governance of AI-generated content across 40 popular social media platforms. Just over two-thirds explicitly describe governance of AI-generated content spanning six themes. Most platforms focus on moderating AI-generated content that violates established content rules and discloses AI-generated content. Fewer platforms -- those that are focused on creativity and knowledge-sharing -- address other issues such as ownership and monetization. Based on these findings, we suggest stakeholders and policymakers develop more direct, comprehensive, and forward-looking AI-generated content governance, as well as tools and education for users about the use of such content.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

AutoChecklist: Composable Pipelines for Checklist Generation and Scoring with LLM-as-a-Judge

Checklists have emerged as a popular approach for interpretable and fine-grained evaluation, particularly with LLM-as-a-Judge. Beyond evaluation, these structured criteria can serve as signals for model alignment, reinforcement learning, and self-correction. To support these use cases, we present AutoChecklist, an open-source library that unifies checklist-based evaluation into composable pipelines. At its core is a taxonomy of five checklist generation abstractions, each encoding a distinct strategy for deriving evaluation criteria. A modular Generator $\rightarrow$ Refiner $\rightarrow$ Scorer pipeline connects any generator with a unified scorer, and new configurations can be registered via prompt templates alone. The library ships with ten built-in pipelines implementing published approaches and supports multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, OpenRouter, vLLM). Beyond the Python API, the library includes a CLI for off-the-shelf evaluation and a web interface for interactive exploration. Validation experiments confirm that these checklist methods significantly align with human preferences and quality ratings, and a case study on ICLR peer review rebuttals demonstrates flexible domain adaptation. AutoChecklist is publicly available at https://github.com/ChicagoHAI/AutoChecklist.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Moral Mazes in the Era of LLMs

Navigating complex social situations is an integral part of corporate life, ranging from giving critical feedback without hurting morale to rejecting requests without alienating teammates. Although large language models (LLMs) are permeating the workplace, it is unclear how well they can navigate these norms. To investigate this question, we created HR Simulator, a game where users roleplay as an HR officer and write emails to tackle challenging workplace scenarios, evaluated with GPT-4o as a judge based on scenario-specific rubrics. We analyze over 600 human and LLM emails and find systematic differences in style: LLM emails are more formal and empathetic. Furthermore, humans underperform LLMs (e.g., 23.5% vs. 48-54% scenario pass rate), but human emails rewritten by LLMs can outperform both, which indicates a hybrid advantage. On the evaluation side, judges can exhibit differences in their email preferences: an analysis of 10 judge models reveals evidence for emergent tact, where weaker models prefer direct, blunt communication but stronger models prefer more subtle messages. Judges also agree with each other more as they scale, which hints at a convergence toward shared communicative norms that may differ from humans'. Overall, our results suggest LLMs could substantially reshape communication in the workplace if they are widely adopted in professional correspondence.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research

Reproducibility crises across sciences highlight the limitations of the paper-centric review system in assessing the rigor and reproducibility of research. AI agents that autonomously design and generate large volumes of research outputs exacerbate these challenges. In this work, we address the growing challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators. We propose the first execution-grounded evaluation framework that verifies research beyond narrative review by examining code and data alongside the paper. We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent, an automated evaluation framework that assesses the coherence of the experimental process, the reproducibility of results, and the generalizability of findings. We show that our framework achieves above 80% agreement with human judges, identifies substantial methodological problems, and surfaces 51 additional issues that human reviewers miss. Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.

cs.CY↗