arXiv subjects

Danish Pruthi

Publications and source records attributed to Danish Pruthi.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Privacy-Hallucination Tradeoff in Differentially Private Language Models

Both privacy and factual accuracy are paramount in high-stakes domains like healthcare. Concerningly, we uncover and investigate a privacy-hallucination tradeoff in differentially private (DP) language models. First, we empirically show that models pre-trained or fine-tuned with DP tend to produce more hallucinations than non-DP counterparts, with increased severity as the privacy budget grows stricter. Second, we investigate model properties driving this tradeoff, demonstrating that DP mechanisms flatten output distributions, potentially redistributing probability mass toward factually incorrect alternatives. Third, through experiments where we control fact frequency in training data, we characterize how information frequency can reduce hallucination risks in DP models. Overall, our findings underscore the need for more nuanced privacy-preserving interventions that offer rigorous privacy guarantees without compromising factual accuracy.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

OpenStamp: A Watermark for Open-Source Language Models

With the growing prevalence of large language model (LLM) generated content, watermarking is considered a promising approach for attributing text to LLMs and distinguishing it from human-written content. A prominent class of techniques embeds subtle but detectable signals in generated text by modifying token sampling probabilities. However, such methods are unsuitable for open-source models, where users have white-box access and can easily disable watermarking during inference. In this work, we introduce OpenStamp, a watermarking technique that encodes the watermarking logic directly into the model weights by modifying only the final projection, or unembedding, layer. Through experiments across two models, we show that OpenStamp achieves superior detection performance, with minimal degradation in model capabilities compared to prior methods. The implanted watermark is explicitly designed, and empirically confirmed, to be more robust to paraphrasing attacks and harder to scrub off through post-hoc fine-tuning than prior open-source watermarks. To enable developers to watermark their models, we release our code alongside watermarked versions of 4 popular open-source models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Expectations and Practices around AI Disclosure in CS Research

As generative AI tools find increasing use in research workflows, ongoing debates on their impact, appropriateness and responsible use have led policymakers to enact policies to disclose AI use at multiple publishing venues. However, are current AI disclosure policies and practices reflective of their purpose? In this work, we first investigate disclosure policies of top computer science venues and find that despite their prevalence, they remain highly under-specified. Secondly, through a survey of computer science researchers (N=$109$), we characterize the necessity of disclosures across different research tasks and levels of human involvement. We learn that researchers find disclosures most necessary for tasks involving research design, and for tasks when the human involvement is low. We also compile expectations that researchers have about the information to be conveyed in AI disclosure statements. Lastly, through an analysis of $13867$ disclosure statements from EMNLP $2025$ and ICLR $2026$, we reveal a large disconnect between these expectations and AI disclosures in practice---a prime example being writing assistance which is deemed less necessary but is frequently disclosed. We conclude with recommendations to align AI disclosure policies and practices with expectations, suggesting a categorization of research tasks by perceived necessity and a boilerplate template capturing expected details.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews. But, are these policies enforceable? To answer this question, we assemble a dataset of peer reviews simulating multiple levels of human-AI collaboration, and evaluate five state-of-the-art detectors, including two commercial systems. Our analysis shows that all detectors misclassify a non-trivial fraction of LLM-polished reviews as AI-generated, thereby risking false accusations of academic misconduct. We further investigate whether peer-review-specific signals, including access to the paper manuscript and the constrained domain of scientific writing, can be leveraged to improve detection. While incorporating such signals yields measurable gains in some settings, we identify limitations in each approach and find that none meets the accuracy standards required for identifying AI use in peer reviews. Importantly, our results suggest that recent public estimates of AI use in peer reviews through the use of AI-text detectors should be interpreted with caution, as current detectors misclassify mixed reviews (collaborative human-AI outputs) as fully AI generated, potentially overstating the extent of policy violations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating Reasoning Models for Queries with Presuppositions

Millions of users turn to AI models for their information needs. It is conceivable that a large number of user queries contain assumptions that may be factually inaccurate. Prior work notes that large language models (LLMs) often fail to challenge such erroneous assumptions, and can reinforce users' misinformed opinions. However, given the recent advances, especially in model's reasoning capabilities, we revisit whether large reasoning models (LRMs) can reason about the underlying assumptions and respond to user queries appropriately. We construct queries with varying degrees of presuppositions spanning health, science, and general knowledge, and use it to evaluate several widely-deployed models When compared to non-reasoning models, we find that reasoning models achieve a slightly higher accuracy (2-11%), but they still fail to challenge a large fraction (26-42%) of false presuppositions. Further, reasoning models remain susceptible to how strongly the presupposition is expressed.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Where Do Images Come From? Analyzing Captions to Geographically Profile Datasets

Recent studies show that text-to-image models often fail to generate geographically representative images, raising concerns about the representativeness of their training data and motivating the question: which parts of the world do these training examples come from? We geographically profile large-scale multimodal datasets by mapping image-caption pairs to countries based on location information extracted from captions using LLMs. Studying English captions from three widely used datasets (Re-LAION, DataComp1B, and Conceptual Captions) across $20$ common entities (e.g., house, flag), we find that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada account for $48.0\%$ of samples, while South American and African countries are severely under-represented with only $1.8\%$ and $3.8\%$ of images, respectively. We observe a strong correlation between a country's GDP and its representation in the data ($ρ= 0.82$). Examining non-English subsets for $4$ languages from the Re-LAION dataset, we find that representation skews heavily toward countries where these languages are predominantly spoken. Additionally, we find that higher representation does not necessarily translate to greater visual or semantic diversity. Finally, analyzing country-specific images generated by Stable Diffusion v1.3 trained on Re-LAION, we show that while generations appear realistic, they are severely limited in their coverage compared to real-world images.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

TALES: A Taxonomy and Analysis of Cultural Representations in LLM-generated Stories

Millions of users across the globe turn to AI chatbots for their creative needs, inviting widespread interest in understanding how they represent diverse cultures. However, evaluating cultural representations in open-ended tasks remains challenging and underexplored. In this work, we present TALES, an evaluation of cultural misrepresentations in LLM-generated stories for diverse Indian cultural identities. First, we develop TALES-Tax, a taxonomy of cultural misrepresentations by collating insights from participants with lived experiences in India through focus groups (N=9) and individual surveys (N=15). Using TALES-Tax, we evaluate 6 models through a large-scale annotation study spanning 2925 annotations from 108 annotators with lived experience and native language proficiency from across 71 regions in India and 14 languages. Concerningly, we find that 88% of the generated stories contain misrepresentations, and such errors are more prevalent in mid- and low-resourced languages and stories based in peri-urban regions in India. We also transform the annotations into TALES-QA, a standalone question bank to evaluate the cultural knowledge of models.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Beyond World Models: Rethinking Understanding in AI Models

World models have garnered substantial interest in the AI community. These are internal representations that simulate aspects of the external world, track entities and states, capture causal relationships, and enable prediction of consequences. This contrasts with representations based solely on statistical correlations. A key motivation behind this research direction is that humans possess such mental world models, and finding evidence of similar representations in AI models might indicate that these models "understand" the world in a human-like way. In this paper, we use case studies from the philosophy of science literature to critically examine whether the world model framework adequately characterizes human-level understanding. We focus on specific philosophical analyses where the distinction between world model capabilities and human understanding is most pronounced. While these represent particular views of understanding rather than universal definitions, they help us explore the limits of world models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

All That Glitters is Not Novel: Plagiarism in AI Generated Research

Automating scientific research is considered the final frontier of science. Recently, several papers claim autonomous research agents can generate novel research ideas. Amidst the prevailing optimism, we document a critical concern: a considerable fraction of such research documents are smartly plagiarized. Unlike past efforts where experts evaluate the novelty and feasibility of research ideas, we request $13$ experts to operate under a different situational logic: to identify similarities between LLM-generated research documents and existing work. Concerningly, the experts identify $24\%$ of the $50$ evaluated research documents to be either paraphrased (with one-to-one methodological mapping), or significantly borrowed from existing work. These reported instances are cross-verified by authors of the source papers. The remaining $76\%$ of documents show varying degrees of similarity with existing work, with only a small fraction appearing completely novel. Problematically, these LLM-generated research documents do not acknowledge original sources, and bypass inbuilt plagiarism detectors. Lastly, through controlled experiments we show that automated plagiarism detectors are inadequate at catching plagiarized ideas from such systems. We recommend a careful assessment of LLM-generated research, and discuss the implications of our findings on academic publishing.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

FairI Tales: Evaluation of Fairness in Indian Contexts with a Focus on Bias and Stereotypes

Existing studies on fairness are largely Western-focused, making them inadequate for culturally diverse countries such as India. To address this gap, we introduce INDIC-BIAS, a comprehensive India-centric benchmark designed to evaluate fairness of LLMs across 85 identity groups encompassing diverse castes, religions, regions, and tribes. We first consult domain experts to curate over 1,800 socio-cultural topics spanning behaviors and situations, where biases and stereotypes are likely to emerge. Grounded in these topics, we generate and manually validate 20,000 real-world scenario templates to probe LLMs for fairness. We structure these templates into three evaluation tasks: plausibility, judgment, and generation. Our evaluation of 14 popular LLMs on these tasks reveals strong negative biases against marginalized identities, with models frequently reinforcing common stereotypes. Additionally, we find that models struggle to mitigate bias even when explicitly asked to rationalize their decision. Our evaluation provides evidence of both allocative and representational harms that current LLMs could cause towards Indian identities, calling for a more cautious usage in practical applications. We release INDIC-BIAS as an open-source benchmark to advance research on benchmarking and mitigating biases and stereotypes in the Indian context.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Silencing Empowerment, Allowing Bigotry: Auditing the Moderation of Hate Speech on Twitch

To meet the demands of content moderation, online platforms have resorted to automated systems. Newer forms of real-time engagement($\textit{e.g.}$, users commenting on live streams) on platforms like Twitch exert additional pressures on the latency expected of such moderation systems. Despite their prevalence, relatively little is known about the effectiveness of these systems. In this paper, we conduct an audit of Twitch's automated moderation tool ($\texttt{AutoMod}$) to investigate its effectiveness in flagging hateful content. For our audit, we create streaming accounts to act as siloed test beds, and interface with the live chat using Twitch's APIs to send over $107,000$ comments collated from $4$ datasets. We measure $\texttt{AutoMod}$'s accuracy in flagging blatantly hateful content containing misogyny, racism, ableism and homophobia. Our experiments reveal that a large fraction of hateful messages, up to $94\%$ on some datasets, $\textit{bypass moderation}$. Contextual addition of slurs to these messages results in $100\%$ removal, revealing $\texttt{AutoMod}$'s reliance on slurs as a moderation signal. We also find that contrary to Twitch's community guidelines, $\texttt{AutoMod}$ blocks up to $89.5\%$ of benign examples that use sensitive words in pedagogical or empowering contexts. Overall, our audit points to large gaps in $\texttt{AutoMod}$'s capabilities and underscores the importance for such systems to understand context effectively.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

STAMP Your Content: Proving Dataset Membership via Watermarked Rephrasings

Given how large parts of publicly available text are crawled to pretrain large language models (LLMs), data creators increasingly worry about the inclusion of their proprietary data for model training without attribution or licensing. Their concerns are also shared by benchmark curators whose test-sets might be compromised. In this paper, we present STAMP, a framework for detecting dataset membership-i.e., determining the inclusion of a dataset in the pretraining corpora of LLMs. Given an original piece of content, our proposal involves first generating multiple rephrases, each embedding a watermark with a unique secret key. One version is to be released publicly, while others are to be kept private. Subsequently, creators can compare model likelihoods between public and private versions using paired statistical tests to prove membership. We show that our framework can successfully detect contamination across four benchmarks which appear only once in the training data and constitute less than 0.001% of the total tokens, outperforming several contamination detection and dataset inference baselines. We verify that STAMP preserves both the semantic meaning and utility of the original data. We apply STAMP to two real-world scenarios to confirm the inclusion of paper abstracts and blog articles in the pretraining corpora.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Richer Output for Richer Countries: Uncovering Geographical Disparities in Generated Stories and Travel Recommendations

While a large body of work inspects language models for biases concerning gender, race, occupation and religion, biases of geographical nature are relatively less explored. Some recent studies benchmark the degree to which large language models encode geospatial knowledge. However, the impact of the encoded geographical knowledge (or lack thereof) on real-world applications has not been documented. In this work, we examine large language models for two common scenarios that require geographical knowledge: (a) travel recommendations and (b) geo-anchored story generation. Specifically, we study five popular language models, and across about $100$K travel requests, and $200$K story generations, we observe that travel recommendations corresponding to poorer countries are less unique with fewer location references, and stories from these regions more often convey emotions of hardship and sadness compared to those from wealthier nations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Knowledge Graph Guided Evaluation of Abstention Techniques

To deploy language models safely, it is crucial that they abstain from responding to inappropriate requests. Several prior studies test the safety promises of models based on their effectiveness in blocking malicious requests. In this work, we focus on evaluating the underlying techniques that cause models to abstain. We create SELECT, a benchmark derived from a set of benign concepts (e.g., "rivers") from a knowledge graph. Focusing on benign concepts isolates the effect of safety training, and grounding these concepts in a knowledge graph allows us to study the generalization and specificity of abstention techniques. Using SELECT, we benchmark different abstention techniques over six open-weight and closed-source models. We find that the examined techniques indeed cause models to abstain with over $80\%$ abstention rates. However, these techniques are not as effective for descendants of the target concepts, where abstention rates drop by $19\%$. We also characterize the generalization-specificity trade-offs for different techniques. Overall, no single technique is invariably better than others, and our findings inform practitioners of the various trade-offs involved.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Revisiting the Robustness of Watermarking to Paraphrasing Attacks

Amidst rising concerns about the internet being proliferated with content generated from language models (LMs), watermarking is seen as a principled way to certify whether text was generated from a model. Many recent watermarking techniques slightly modify the output probabilities of LMs to embed a signal in the generated output that can later be detected. Since early proposals for text watermarking, questions about their robustness to paraphrasing have been prominently discussed. Lately, some techniques are deliberately designed and claimed to be robust to paraphrasing. However, such watermarking schemes do not adequately account for the ease with which they can be reverse-engineered. We show that with access to only a limited number of generations from a black-box watermarked model, we can drastically increase the effectiveness of paraphrasing attacks to evade watermark detection, thereby rendering the watermark ineffective.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

Downstream Trade-offs of a Family of Text Watermarks

Watermarking involves implanting an imperceptible signal into generated text that can later be detected via statistical tests. A prominent family of watermarking strategies for LLMs embeds this signal by upsampling a (pseudorandomly-chosen) subset of tokens at every generation step. However, such signals alter the model's output distribution and can have unintended effects on its downstream performance. In this work, we evaluate the performance of LLMs watermarked using three different strategies over a diverse suite of tasks including those cast as k-class classification (CLS), multiple choice question answering (MCQ), short-form generation (e.g., open-ended question answering) and long-form generation (e.g., translation) tasks. We find that watermarks (under realistic hyperparameters) can cause significant drops in LLMs' effective utility across all tasks. We observe drops of 10 to 20% in CLS tasks in the average case, which shoot up to 100% in the worst case. We notice degradations of about 7% in MCQ tasks, 10-15% in short-form generation, and 5-15% in long-form generation tasks. Our findings highlight the trade-offs that users should be cognizant of when using watermarked models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Evaluating Large Language Models for Health-related Queries with Presuppositions

As corporations rush to integrate large language models (LLMs) to their search offerings, it is critical that they provide factually accurate information that is robust to any presuppositions that a user may express. In this work, we introduce UPHILL, a dataset consisting of health-related queries with varying degrees of presuppositions. Using UPHILL, we evaluate the factual accuracy and consistency of InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and BingChat models. We find that while model responses rarely disagree with true health claims (posed as questions), they often fail to challenge false claims: responses from InstructGPT agree with 32% of the false claims, ChatGPT 26% and BingChat 23%. As we increase the extent of presupposition in input queries, the responses from InstructGPT and ChatGPT agree with the claim considerably more often, regardless of its veracity. Responses from BingChat, which rely on retrieved webpages, are not as susceptible. Given the moderate factual accuracy, and the inability of models to consistently correct false assumptions, our work calls for a careful assessment of current LLMs for use in high-stakes scenarios.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?

The number of scientific articles produced every year is growing rapidly. Providing quality control over them is crucial for scientists and, ultimately, for the public good. In modern science, this process is largely delegated to peer review -- a distributed procedure in which each submission is evaluated by several independent experts in the field. Peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review -- manuscripts, reviews, discussions -- are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. As the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has enabled NLP assistance for many new tasks, the discussion on machine-assisted peer review is picking up the pace. Yet, where exactly is help needed, where can NLP help, and where should it stand aside? The goal of our paper is to provide a foundation for the future efforts in NLP for peer-reviewing assistance. We discuss peer review as a general process, exemplified by reviewing at AI conferences. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance, illustrated by existing work. We then turn to the big challenges in NLP for peer review as a whole, including data acquisition and licensing, operationalization and experimentation, and ethical issues. To help consolidate community efforts, we create a companion repository that aggregates key datasets pertaining to peer review. Finally, we issue a detailed call for action for the scientific community, NLP and AI researchers, policymakers, and funding bodies to help bring the research in NLP for peer review forward. We hope that our work will help set the agenda for research in machine-assisted scientific quality control in the age of AI, within the NLP community and beyond.

cs.CL↗