arXiv subjects

Maryam Amirizaniani

Publications and source records attributed to Maryam Amirizaniani.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Can MLLMs Critique Like Humans? Evaluating Open-Ended Aesthetic Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models

Open-ended aesthetic critique is a challenge for multimodal large language models (MLLMs): it has no single correct answer, and most aesthetic evaluation measures models against numeric scores rather than the written critiques people actually give. We ask whether MLLM critiques are close to human ones, scoring eight open-weight MLLMs from $7$B to $397$B, plus GPT-5.5, against multiple ranked human critiques for each of $1{,}227$ \texttt{r/photocritique} posts under eight prompt conditions. Reference-based similarity gives a misleading picture. In absolute terms the stricter lexical and learned metrics align only weakly with human critiques while a coarse embedding cosine reports broad topical overlap, yet requesting shorter critiques raises those scores and withholding the image barely changes them: the similarity reflects length, the post text, and a stable critiquing style more than image-specific observation. An LLM judge sharpens the question rather than settling it: in the primary condition all four judges prefer the frontier models' critiques to the human ones, but on the $7$--$8$B models they diverge wildly, from $9\%$ to $81\%$ preference on identical pairs. Asked instead how similar each pair is in substance, those judges and two human annotators agree, rating every model between $1.81$ and $2.59$ on a $1$--$5$ scale, close to ``mostly different''. Behaviorally, the models diverge in ways the scores do not surface: they cover nearly every aesthetic aspect where humans are selective and repeat themselves across critiques of one photo, even when prompted to write at human length. We argue that reference-based similarity rewards a fluent, comprehensive critique style rather than the selectivity and specificity of human critique.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Training LLMs with Reinforcement Learning for Intent-Aware Personalized Question Answering

Effective personalized question answering (PQA) in language models requires grounding responses in the user's underlying intent, where intent refers to the implicit ``why'' behind a query beyond its explicit wording. However, existing approaches to intent-aware personalization rely on multi-turn conversational context or rich user profiles, and do not explicitly model user intent during the reasoning process. This limits their effectiveness in single-turn settings, where the user's latent goal must be inferred from minimal input and integrated into the thinking and reasoning process. To bridge this gap, we propose IAP (Intent-Aware Personalization), a reinforcement learning framework that trains models to infer implicit user intent directly from a single-turn question and incorporate it into thinking steps through a tag-based schema for generating personalized, intent-grounded answers. By optimizing intent-aware answer trajectories under a personalized reward function, IAP reinforces generation paths that make implicit user intent explicit and produce responses that better align with the user's underlying goal. Through experiments on the LaMP-QA benchmark across six models, IAP consistently outperforms all baselines, achieving an average macro-score gain of around 7.5\% over the strongest competitor, demonstrating that modeling implicit user intent within the training objective is a promising direction for PQA.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

IPQA: A Benchmark for Core Intent Identification in Personalized Question Answering

Intent identification serves as the foundation for generating appropriate responses in personalized question answering (PQA). However, existing benchmarks evaluate only response quality or retrieval performance without directly measuring intent identification capabilities. This gap is critical because without understanding which intents users prioritize, systems cannot generate responses satisfying individual information needs. To address this, we introduce the concept of core intents: intents users prioritize when selecting answers to satisfy their information needs. To evaluate these core intents, we propose IPQA, a benchmark for core Intent identification in Personalized Question Answering. Since users do not explicitly state their prioritized intents, we derive core intents from observable behavior patterns in answer selection, grounded in satisficing theory where users choose answers meeting their acceptance thresholds. We construct a dataset with various domains through systematic filtering, LLM-based annotation, and rigorous quality control combining automated verification with human validation. Experimental evaluations across state-of-the-art language models reveal that current systems struggle with core intent identification in personalized contexts. Models fail to identify core intents from user histories, with performance degrading as question complexity increases. The code and dataset will be made publicly available to facilitate future research in this direction.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Learning to Reason for Multi-Step Retrieval of Personal Context in Personalized Question Answering

Personalization in Question Answering (QA) requires answers that are both accurate and aligned with users' background, preferences, and historical context. Existing state-of-the-art methods primarily rely on retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) solutions that construct personal context by retrieving relevant items from the user's profile. Existing methods use the user's query directly to retrieve personal documents, and such strategies often lead to surface-level personalization. We propose PR2 (Personalized Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning), a reinforcement learning framework that integrates reasoning and retrieval from personal context for personalization. PR2 learns adaptive retrieval-reasoning policies, determining when to retrieve, what evidence to retrieve from user profiles, and how to incorporate it into intermediate reasoning steps. By optimizing multi-turn reasoning trajectories under a personalized reward function, the framework reinforces reasoning paths that better align with user-specific preferences and contextual signals reflected by the reward model. Extensive experiments on the LaMP-QA benchmark using three LLMs show that PR2 consistently outperforms strong baselines, achieving an average relative improvement of 8.8%-12% in personalized QA.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

AuditLLM: A Tool for Auditing Large Language Models Using Multiprobe Approach

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into various sectors, ensuring their reliability and safety is crucial. This necessitates rigorous probing and auditing to maintain their effectiveness and trustworthiness in practical applications. Subjecting LLMs to varied iterations of a single query can unveil potential inconsistencies in their knowledge base or functional capacity. However, a tool for performing such audits with a easy to execute workflow, and low technical threshold is lacking. In this demo, we introduce ``AuditLLM,'' a novel tool designed to audit the performance of various LLMs in a methodical way. AuditLLM's primary function is to audit a given LLM by deploying multiple probes derived from a single question, thus detecting any inconsistencies in the model's comprehension or performance. A robust, reliable, and consistent LLM is expected to generate semantically similar responses to variably phrased versions of the same question. Building on this premise, AuditLLM generates easily interpretable results that reflect the LLM's consistency based on a single input question provided by the user. A certain level of inconsistency has been shown to be an indicator of potential bias, hallucinations, and other issues. One could then use the output of AuditLLM to further investigate issues with the aforementioned LLM. To facilitate demonstration and practical uses, AuditLLM offers two key modes: (1) Live mode which allows instant auditing of LLMs by analyzing responses to real-time queries; and (2) Batch mode which facilitates comprehensive LLM auditing by processing multiple queries at once for in-depth analysis. This tool is beneficial for both researchers and general users, as it enhances our understanding of LLMs' capabilities in generating responses, using a standardized auditing platform.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Do LLMs Exhibit Human-Like Reasoning? Evaluating Theory of Mind in LLMs for Open-Ended Responses

Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning entails recognizing that other individuals possess their own intentions, emotions, and thoughts, which is vital for guiding one's own thought processes. Although large language models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as summarization, question answering, and translation, they still face challenges with ToM reasoning, especially in open-ended questions. Despite advancements, the extent to which LLMs truly understand ToM reasoning and how closely it aligns with human ToM reasoning remains inadequately explored in open-ended scenarios. Motivated by this gap, we assess the abilities of LLMs to perceive and integrate human intentions and emotions into their ToM reasoning processes within open-ended questions. Our study utilizes posts from Reddit's ChangeMyView platform, which demands nuanced social reasoning to craft persuasive responses. Our analysis, comparing semantic similarity and lexical overlap metrics between responses generated by humans and LLMs, reveals clear disparities in ToM reasoning capabilities in open-ended questions, with even the most advanced models showing notable limitations. To enhance LLM capabilities, we implement a prompt tuning method that incorporates human intentions and emotions, resulting in improvements in ToM reasoning performance. However, despite these improvements, the enhancement still falls short of fully achieving human-like reasoning. This research highlights the deficiencies in LLMs' social reasoning and demonstrates how integrating human intentions and emotions can boost their effectiveness.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

LLMAuditor: A Framework for Auditing Large Language Models Using Human-in-the-Loop

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become more pervasive across various users and scenarios, identifying potential issues when using these models becomes essential. Examples of such issues include: bias, inconsistencies, and hallucination. Although auditing the LLM for these problems is often warranted, such a process is neither easy nor accessible for most. An effective method is to probe the LLM using different versions of the same question. This could expose inconsistencies in its knowledge or operation, indicating potential for bias or hallucination. However, to operationalize this auditing method at scale, we need an approach to create those probes reliably and automatically. In this paper we propose the LLMAuditor framework which is an automatic, and scalable solution, where one uses a different LLM along with human-in-the-loop (HIL). This approach offers verifiability and transparency, while avoiding circular reliance on the same LLM, and increasing scientific rigor and generalizability. Specifically, LLMAuditor includes two phases of verification using humans: standardized evaluation criteria to verify responses, and a structured prompt template to generate desired probes. A case study using questions from the TruthfulQA dataset demonstrates that we can generate a reliable set of probes from one LLM that can be used to audit inconsistencies in a different LLM. This process is enhanced by our structured prompt template with HIL, which not only boosts the reliability of our approach in auditing but also yields the delivery of less hallucinated results. The novelty of our research stems from the development of a comprehensive, general-purpose framework that includes a HIL verified prompt template for auditing responses generated by LLMs.

cs.AI↗