arXiv subjects

Jon Chun

Publications and source records attributed to Jon Chun.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Auditing Game-Theoretic Measures of Strategic Reasoning in LLMs

Game-theoretic benchmarks can separate distinct forms of strategic behavior in LLMs that aggregate theory of mind scores do not distinguish, but only if those benchmarks measure what they claim. We audit a four-game framework and a sealed-bid auction control based on 1,855 interactions among seven LLMs, correcting its first release against the raw transcripts. A 1,024-token completion limit caused some models to return empty answers that parsers silently replaced with fixed actions, invalidating the reported Kimi K2 profile and contaminating measurements in all game types. A solution of the implemented signaling game also replaces the previously reported equilibrium bluff target of 0.340 with a conditional rate of 2/3. On valid responses, bluff propensity ranges from 0.109 to 0.732 across models. A fitted model-specific propensity predicts held-out choices as well as or better than every equilibrium and QRE candidate tested. The equilibrium's type-level prescriptions are rejected for every model where they can be tested, and its aggregate rate keeps pace only when a model's own rate happens to be similar. Surviving valid cells cannot identify the previously reported cross-axis correlation. Finally, correcting an analysis-layer bug in the prompt-framing study reverses a prior result: reframing leaves Claude Haiku's bluff rate unchanged near 0.59 but raises GPT-4o-mini's greatly, from 0.08 to 0.65-0.67. Framing effects are model-dependent, and the measurements remain framing-conditional. We therefore treat fitted lambda values as payoff- and model-dependent summaries instead of structural rationality parameters. The transcript corpus and per-move validity masks are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21943627. The exact solver and correction pipeline will accompany a future release. Appendix itemizes the changes.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

CEI: A Benchmark for Evaluating Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models

Pragmatic reasoning, inferring intended meaning beyond literal semantics, underpins everyday communication yet remains difficult for large language models. We present the Contextual Emotional Inference (CEI) Benchmark: 300 human-validated scenarios for evaluating how well LLMs disambiguate pragmatically complex utterances. Each scenario pairs a situational context and speaker-listener roles (with explicit power relations) against an ambiguous utterance. The dataset covers five pragmatic subtypes (sarcasm/irony, mixed signals, strategic politeness, passive aggression, deflection/misdirection) drawn from workplace, family, social, and service settings, with three power configurations (peer, higher-to-lower, lower-to-higher). Three trained annotators independently labeled every scenario. Inter-annotator agreement (Fleiss' kappa = 0.06-0.25 by subtype) is low but expected: pragmatic inference admits multiple valid readings, and the disagreement itself is informative. We describe our annotation methodology, including a 4-level quality control pipeline that combines automated statistical checks with expert adjudication. CEI is released under CC-BY-4.0.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Framing Instability in LLM Ethical Stance: Auditing Negation Sensitivity in Moral Dilemmas

Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing. We audit 16 models across 14 ethically fraught dilemmas using polarity-paired proposals ("They should X" / "They should not X"). A model's judgment of the underlying action should not reverse merely because the question is phrased as a prohibition rather than a prescription and yet, we find systematic deviations from this invariance including wholesale endorsement flips, indicating that ethical decisions are vulnerable to framing instability. Small open-weight models (1-4B parameters) endorse a proposed action 24% of the time under affirmative framing but up to 100% under negated framings, a swing of as much as 76 percentage points. Human coding of a response sample confirms the instability is genuine while showing that binary agree/disagree proxies over-state its magnitude, suggesting that an LLM judge cannot replace human coders because it silently collapses abstentions and mirrors the very forced-choice bias under study. Commercial models are for the most part more stable but still shift substantially, with cross-model agreement dropping from 73% on the bare affirmative framing to 59% under simple negation. We argue that because binary agree/disagree formats both inflate apparent endorsement and mask polarity-dependence, single-phrasing audits can misreport a model's ethical stance, and we propose the Negation Sensitivity Index (NSI) as a complement that measures stance stability directly. A model whose stance flips with phrasing cannot be relied upon in any high-stakes decision scenario.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The Paradox of Robustness: Decoupling Rule-Based Logic from Affective Noise in High-Stakes Decision-Making

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely documented to be sensitive to minor prompt perturbations and prone to sycophantic alignment, their robustness in consequential, rule-bound decision-making remains under-explored. We uncover a striking "Paradox of Robustness": despite their known lexical brittleness, aligned LLMs exhibit strong robustness to emotional framing effects in rule-bound institutional decision-making. Using a controlled perturbation framework across three high-stakes domains (healthcare, finance, and education), we find a negligible effect size (Cohen's h = 0.003) compared to the substantial biases observed in analogous human contexts (h in [0.3, 0.8]), approximately two orders of magnitude smaller. This invariance persists across eight models with diverse training paradigms, suggesting the mechanisms driving sycophancy and prompt sensitivity do not translate to failures in logical constraint satisfaction. While LLMs may be "brittle" to how a query is formatted, they appear considerably more stable against affective attempts to bias rule-bound decisions. To probe the boundary of this finding, we add two reviewer-driven side studies. A five-scenario immigration extension yields a small but statistically detectable +0.8 percentage point shift that remains within a pre-specified +/-3 percentage point Region of Practical Equivalence (ROPE), while a screening-level adversarial narrative pilot finds no meaningful decision shift under stronger LLM-generated prompts. We release a core benchmark (9 base scenarios x 18 condition variants = 162 unique prompts), code, and data to facilitate replicable evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AgenticSimLaw: A Juvenile Courtroom Multi-Agent Debate Simulation for Explainable High-Stakes Tabular Decision Making

We introduce AgenticSimLaw, a role-structured, multi-agent debate framework that provides transparent and controllable test-time reasoning for high-stakes tabular decision-making tasks. Unlike black-box approaches, our courtroom-style orchestration explicitly defines agent roles (prosecutor, defense, judge), interaction protocols (7-turn structured debate), and private reasoning strategies, creating a fully auditable decision-making process. We benchmark this framework on young adult recidivism prediction using the NLSY97 dataset, comparing it against traditional chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting across almost 90 unique combinations of models and strategies. Our results demonstrate that structured multi-agent debate provides more stable and generalizable performance compared to single-agent reasoning, with stronger correlation between accuracy and F1-score metrics. Beyond performance improvements, AgenticSimLaw offers fine-grained control over reasoning steps, generates complete interaction transcripts for explainability, and enables systematic profiling of agent behaviors. While we instantiate this framework in the criminal justice domain to stress-test reasoning under ethical complexity, the approach generalizes to any deliberative, high-stakes decision task requiring transparency and human oversight. This work addresses key LLM-based multi-agent system challenges: organization through structured roles, observability through logged interactions, and responsibility through explicit non-deployment constraints for sensitive domains. Data, results, and code will be available on github.com under the MIT license.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Syntactic Framing Fragility: An Audit of Robustness in LLM Ethical Decisions

Large language models exhibit systematic negation sensitivity, yet no operational framework exists to measure this vulnerability at deployment scale, especially in high-stakes decisions. We introduce Syntactic Framing Fragility (SFF), a framework for quantifying decision consistency under logically equivalent syntactic transformations. SFF isolates syntactic effects via Logical Polarity Normalization, enabling direct comparison across positive and negative framings while controlling for polarity inversion, and provides the Syntactic Variation Index (SVI) as a robustness metric suitable for CI/CD integration. Auditing 23 models across 14 high-stakes scenarios (39,975 decisions), we establish ground-truth effect sizes for a phenomenon previously characterized only qualitatively and find that open-source models exhibit $2.2x higher fragility than commercial counterparts. Negation-bearing syntax is the dominant failure mode, with some models endorsing actions at 80-97% rates even when asked whether agents not act. These patterns are consistent with negation suppression failure documented in prior work, with chain-of-thought reasoning reducing fragility in some but not all cases. We provide scenario-stratified risk profiles and offer an operational checklist compatible with EU AI Act and NIST RMF requirements. Code, data, and scenarios will be released upon publication.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Comparative Global AI Regulation: Policy Perspectives from the EU, China, and the US

As a powerful and rapidly advancing dual-use technology, AI offers both immense benefits and worrisome risks. In response, governing bodies around the world are developing a range of regulatory AI laws and policies. This paper compares three distinct approaches taken by the EU, China and the US. Within the US, we explore AI regulation at both the federal and state level, with a focus on California's pending Senate Bill 1047. Each regulatory system reflects distinct cultural, political and economic perspectives. Each also highlights differing regional perspectives on regulatory risk-benefit tradeoffs, with divergent judgments on the balance between safety versus innovation and cooperation versus competition. Finally, differences between regulatory frameworks reflect contrastive stances in regards to trust in centralized authority versus trust in a more decentralized free market of self-interested stakeholders. Taken together, these varied approaches to AI innovation and regulation influence each other, the broader international community, and the future of AI regulation.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Risks and Opportunities of Open-Source Generative AI

Applications of Generative AI (Gen AI) are expected to revolutionize a number of different areas, ranging from science & medicine to education. The potential for these seismic changes has triggered a lively debate about the potential risks of the technology, and resulted in calls for tighter regulation, in particular from some of the major tech companies who are leading in AI development. This regulation is likely to put at risk the budding field of open-source generative AI. Using a three-stage framework for Gen AI development (near, mid and long-term), we analyze the risks and opportunities of open-source generative AI models with similar capabilities to the ones currently available (near to mid-term) and with greater capabilities (long-term). We argue that, overall, the benefits of open-source Gen AI outweigh its risks. As such, we encourage the open sourcing of models, training and evaluation data, and provide a set of recommendations and best practices for managing risks associated with open-source generative AI.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Near to Mid-term Risks and Opportunities of Open-Source Generative AI

In the next few years, applications of Generative AI are expected to revolutionize a number of different areas, ranging from science & medicine to education. The potential for these seismic changes has triggered a lively debate about potential risks and resulted in calls for tighter regulation, in particular from some of the major tech companies who are leading in AI development. This regulation is likely to put at risk the budding field of open-source Generative AI. We argue for the responsible open sourcing of generative AI models in the near and medium term. To set the stage, we first introduce an AI openness taxonomy system and apply it to 40 current large language models. We then outline differential benefits and risks of open versus closed source AI and present potential risk mitigation, ranging from best practices to calls for technical and scientific contributions. We hope that this report will add a much needed missing voice to the current public discourse on near to mid-term AI safety and other societal impact.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Informed AI Regulation: Comparing the Ethical Frameworks of Leading LLM Chatbots Using an Ethics-Based Audit to Assess Moral Reasoning and Normative Values

With the rise of individual and collaborative networks of autonomous agents, AI is deployed in more key reasoning and decision-making roles. For this reason, ethics-based audits play a pivotal role in the rapidly growing fields of AI safety and regulation. This paper undertakes an ethics-based audit to probe the 8 leading commercial and open-source Large Language Models including GPT-4. We assess explicability and trustworthiness by a) establishing how well different models engage in moral reasoning and b) comparing normative values underlying models as ethical frameworks. We employ an experimental, evidence-based approach that challenges the models with ethical dilemmas in order to probe human-AI alignment. The ethical scenarios are designed to require a decision in which the particulars of the situation may or may not necessitate deviating from normative ethical principles. A sophisticated ethical framework was consistently elicited in one model, GPT-4. Nonetheless, troubling findings include underlying normative frameworks with clear bias towards particular cultural norms. Many models also exhibit disturbing authoritarian tendencies. Code is available at https://github.com/jonchun/llm-sota-chatbots-ethics-based-audit.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

SentimentArcs: A Novel Method for Self-Supervised Sentiment Analysis of Time Series Shows SOTA Transformers Can Struggle Finding Narrative Arcs

SOTA Transformer and DNN short text sentiment classifiers report over 97% accuracy on narrow domains like IMDB movie reviews. Real-world performance is significantly lower because traditional models overfit benchmarks and generalize poorly to different or more open domain texts. This paper introduces SentimentArcs, a new self-supervised time series sentiment analysis methodology that addresses the two main limitations of traditional supervised sentiment analysis: limited labeled training datasets and poor generalization. A large ensemble of diverse models provides a synthetic ground truth for self-supervised learning. Novel metrics jointly optimize an exhaustive search across every possible corpus:model combination. The joint optimization over both the corpus and model solves the generalization problem. Simple visualizations exploit the temporal structure in narratives so domain experts can quickly spot trends, identify key features, and note anomalies over hundreds of arcs and millions of data points. To our knowledge, this is the first self-supervised method for time series sentiment analysis and the largest survey directly comparing real-world model performance on long-form narratives.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2019

Can Sentiment Analysis Reveal Structure in a Plotless Novel?

Modernist novels are thought to break with traditional plot structure. In this paper, we test this theory by applying Sentiment Analysis to one of the most famous modernist novels, To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf. We first assess Sentiment Analysis in light of the critique that it cannot adequately account for literary language: we use a unique statistical comparison to demonstrate that even simple lexical approaches to Sentiment Analysis are surprisingly effective. We then use the Syuzhet.R package to explore similarities and differences across modeling methods. This comparative approach, when paired with literary close reading, can offer interpretive clues. To our knowledge, we are the first to undertake a hybrid model that fully leverages the strengths of both computational analysis and close reading. This hybrid model raises new questions for the literary critic, such as how to interpret relative versus absolute emotional valence and how to take into account subjective identification. Our finding is that while To the Lighthouse does not replicate a plot centered around a traditional hero, it does reveal an underlying emotional structure distributed between characters - what we term a distributed heroine model. This finding is innovative in the field of modernist and narrative studies and demonstrates that a hybrid method can yield significant discoveries.

cs.CL↗