Khawaja Abaid Ullah | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

How Do Large Language Models Judge Social Attraction? Evidence from Theory-Grounded Persona Ratings Across Multiple LLMs and Humans

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to perform subjective evaluations traditionally made by humans, yet their validity as social judges remains unclear. This paper examines whether LLMs can assess social attraction from theory-grounded persona profiles constructed from ten psychological and relational constructs and organized into three tiers: socially attractive, socially mixed, and socially unattractive. We examine LLM ratings in two studies and compare them with human judgments in a third study. In Study 1, 34 LLMs rated 12 profiles across three repeated runs. Although some models tended to give higher or lower ratings overall, they showed strong stability across runs, consistent three-tier ordering, and high agreement in relative profile ordering. Study 2 examined sensitivity to gender presentation using six matched name-and-pronoun profile pairs and a separate pronoun-only test with a gender-neutral name, finding no significant effects in either analysis. In Study 3, 198 human participants evaluated the six matched profiles from Study 2. Their ratings reproduced the three-tier structure and followed a profile ordering consistent with that of the LLMs. However, LLMs rated attractive profiles more positively and unattractive profiles more negatively than humans, while neither group showed a significant overall effect of gender presentation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

ADS-C: Antidistillation Sampling for Classification

Knowledge distillation enables an adversary to replicate a proprietary classifier by querying its prediction interface and training a surrogate on the returned probability vectors. Antidistillation sampling, proposed for large language models, counters this threat with an input-dependent, gradient-directed perturbation of the served distribution; its transfer to classification has not been studied. Adapting the defense to classification, we show its behavior is governed by the distribution of the teacher's per-input confidence margins. Because well-trained classifiers are severely overconfident, the direct transfer exhibits an inert window: below a closed-form-predictable threshold, it affects neither attacker nor defender; beyond it, the defense undergoes a phase transition and degrades the teacher faster than the attacker's student. Temperature softening rescales the transition in closed form, and every temperature configuration lies on the same unfavorable trade-off curve. Our method, ADS-C, composes the perturbation under a closed-form, per-input margin budget that provably preserves every served top-1 prediction, so the defended teacher's accuracy equals the undefended teacher's identically. Under this guarantee the distilled student still loses 17.4 percentage points on CIFAR-100, 29.6 on CIFAR-10, and 13.3 on Tiny-ImageNet; matching this degradation with the unmodified defense costs 27.5, 32.9, and 22.2 points of teacher accuracy. Because served labels are unchanged, a hard-label attacker gains nothing, while the defended soft output trains a student up to 29.7 points below that floor: the incentive to distill served probabilities is not merely removed but reversed. To our knowledge, ADS-C is the first antidistillation defense for classification whose utility cost is exactly zero.

cs.LG↗