arXiv subjects

Nimet Beyza Bozdag

Publications and source records attributed to Nimet Beyza Bozdag.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Language Specific Knowledge: Do Models Know Better in X than in English?

Often, multilingual language models are trained with the objective to map semantically similar content (in different languages) in the same latent space. In this paper, we show a nuance in this training objective, and find that by changing the language of the input query, we can improve the question answering ability of language models. We make two main contributions. First, we introduce the term Language Specific Knowledge (LSK) to denote queries that are best answered in an ``expert language'' for a given LLM, thereby enhancing its question-answering ability. We introduce the problem of language selection -- for some queries, language models can perform better when queried in languages other than English, sometimes even better in low-resource languages -- and the goal is to select the optimal language for the query. Second, we introduce a variety of simple to strong baselines to empirically motivate the language selection problem (including one of our own methods called LSKExtractor). During our evaluation, we employ three datasets that contain knowledge about both cultural and social behavioral norms. Overall, the results show that principled language selection can improve the performance of a language model, and that the expected question-to-language map is not always intuitive: Gemma models know most about China and Middle East in Spanish; Qwen models know most about authority and responsibility in Arabic and Chinese. Broadly, our research contributes to the open-source development of language models that are inclusive and more aligned with the cultural and linguistic contexts in which they are deployed.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Learning to Persuade Exposes How Easily LLMs Abandon Correct Beliefs

Persuasion is a core dynamic of natural language communication, shaping how large language models (LLMs) update beliefs, resolve disagreements, and reach decisions. As LLMs increasingly debate, advise, and think collaboratively with humans and each other, resistance to harmful persuasion becomes a core requirement for reliable behavior. Yet we show that this requirement is far from met: a single targeted persuasive argument is enough to collapse model accuracy to near zero, even when the argument is factually false. We formalize this threat as adversarial persuasion and introduce an adversarial reinforcement learning framework that trains persuader agents to change a target model's answer in a single interaction. First, we show that optimizing persuasion strategies through trial and error exposes vulnerabilities that static prompting misses: RL-trained persuaders raise persuasion success from approximately 24% to over 93% against the training-time persuadee. Second, we find that these learned strategies transfer to unseen models, achieving 83% attack success on Qwen-14B, 79% on Llama-3.1-8B, and 25% on GPT-4o-mini. Third, we demonstrate that a curriculum that bootstraps on more persuadable open-weight models before targeting harder models further increases GPT-4o-mini attack success from 25% to 38%. Moreover, our results reveal that optimized persuaders increasingly rely on credibility-based tactics, including fabricated citations and false authoritative evidence. Together, these findings expose a critical weakness in current LLM agents: even when they initially reason correctly, they can be steered toward false conclusions by optimized natural language influence. This positions persuasion robustness as a necessary safety criterion for multi-agent and human-AI decision-making systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Too Polite to Disagree: Understanding Sycophancy Propagation in Multi-Agent Systems

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy: agreement with user stance even when it conflicts with the model's opinion. While prior work has mostly studied this in single-agent settings, it remains underexplored in collaborative multi-agent systems. We ask whether awareness of other agents' sycophancy levels influences discussion outcomes. To investigate this, we run controlled experiments with six open-source LLMs, providing agents with peer sycophancy rankings that estimate each peer's tendency toward sycophancy. These rankings are based on scores calculated using various static (pre-discussion) and dynamic (online) strategies. We find that providing sycophancy priors reduces the influence of sycophancy-prone peers, mitigates error-cascades, and improves final discussion accuracy by an absolute 10.5%. Thus, this is a lightweight and efficient way to reduce model sycophancy during discussions and subsequently improve downstream accuracy.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Few-Shot Synthetic Accented Speech for ASR Fine-Tuning: What Helps and When?

Synthetic accented speech is a promising way to improve automatic speech recognition (ASR) when real accented recordings are scarce. We ask what makes such data useful for ASR fine-tuning: target-accent phoneme edits that expose the recognizer to accent-specific pronunciations, or random phoneme perturbations that act as augmentation in phoneme space. In a few-shot TTS pipeline, we compare LLM-generated accent edits with matched-rate random substitutions and oracle controls using ground-truth accented phonemes and prosody. Random substitutions recover much of the ASR gain: LLM target-accent edits improve over random by only a small margin, ground-truth phonemes stay close to the random baseline and nearly converge with it as the synthetic ASR fine-tuning set grows larger, and adding ground-truth prosody yields only a modest further gain. Mixing synthetic with real accented speech also stabilizes low-resource fine-tuning, but a fixed synthetic budget can later dilute the information in real data, showing that the real--synthetic ratio matters.

cs.SD↗

arXiv2026

DialDefer: A Framework for Detecting and Mitigating LLM Dialogic Deference

LLMs are increasingly used as third-party judges, yet their reliability when evaluating speakers in dialogue remains poorly understood. We show that LLMs judge identical claims differently depending on framing: the same content receives different verdicts when presented as a statement to verify ("Is this statement correct?") versus attributed to a speaker ("Is this speaker correct?"). We call this dialogic deference and introduce DialDefer, a framework for detecting and mitigating these framing-induced judgment shifts. Our Dialogic Deference Score (DDS) captures directional shifts that aggregate accuracy obscures. Across ten domains, 3k+ instances, and five models, conversational framing induces large shifts (mean|DDS|=15.9 percentage points (pp) across models, p < .0001) while accuracy remains stable (<2 pp), with effects amplifying 2--5x on naturalistic Reddit conversations. This effect is domain-dependent: a single model can shift toward disagreement (skepticism) on graduate-level science and toward agreement (deference) on social judgment. Ablations reveal that human-vs-LLM attribution drives the largest shifts (17.7 pp swing), suggesting models treat disagreement with humans as more costly than with AI. Mitigation attempts can reduce deference but over-correct into skepticism, revealing a calibration problem beyond accuracy optimization.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Persuade Me if You Can: A Framework for Evaluating Persuasion Effectiveness and Susceptibility Among Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate persuasive capabilities that rival human-level persuasion. While these capabilities can be used for social good, they also present risks of potential misuse. Beyond the concern of how LLMs persuade others, their own susceptibility to persuasion poses a critical alignment challenge, raising questions about robustness, safety, and adherence to ethical principles. To study these dynamics, we introduce Persuade Me If You Can (PMIYC), an automated framework for evaluating persuasiveness and susceptibility to persuasion in multi-agent interactions. Our framework offers a scalable alternative to the costly and time-intensive human annotation process typically used to study persuasion in LLMs. PMIYC automatically conducts multi-turn conversations between Persuader and Persuadee agents, measuring both the effectiveness of and susceptibility to persuasion. Our comprehensive evaluation spans a diverse set of LLMs and persuasion settings (e.g., subjective and misinformation scenarios). We validate the efficacy of our framework through human evaluations and demonstrate alignment with human assessments from prior studies. Through PMIYC, we find that Llama-3.3-70B and GPT-4o exhibit similar persuasive effectiveness, outperforming Claude 3 Haiku by 30%. However, GPT-4o demonstrates over 50% greater resistance to persuasion for misinformation compared to Llama-3.3-70B. Notably, o4-mini emerges as both an effective persuader, and a resistant persuadee. These findings provide empirical insights into the persuasive dynamics of LLMs and contribute to the development of safer AI systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Must Read: A Comprehensive Survey of Computational Persuasion

Persuasion is a fundamental aspect of communication, influencing decision-making across diverse contexts, from everyday conversations to high-stakes scenarios such as politics, marketing, and law. The rise of conversational AI systems has significantly expanded the scope of persuasion, introducing both opportunities and risks. AI-driven persuasion can be leveraged for beneficial applications, but also poses threats through unethical influence. Moreover, AI systems are not only persuaders, but also susceptible to persuasion, making them vulnerable to adversarial attacks and bias reinforcement. Despite rapid advancements in AI-generated persuasive content, our understanding of what makes persuasion effective remains limited due to its inherently subjective and context-dependent nature. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of persuasion, structured around three key perspectives: (1) AI as a Persuader, which explores AI-generated persuasive content and its applications; (2) AI as a Persuadee, which examines AI's susceptibility to influence and manipulation; and (3) AI as a Persuasion Judge, which analyzes AI's role in evaluating persuasive strategies, detecting manipulation, and ensuring ethical persuasion. We introduce a taxonomy for persuasion research and discuss key challenges for future research to enhance the safety, fairness, and effectiveness of AI-powered persuasion while addressing the risks posed by increasingly capable language models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

From Fact to Judgment: Investigating the Impact of Task Framing on LLM Conviction in Dialogue Systems

LLMs are increasingly employed as judges across a variety of tasks, including those involving everyday social interactions. Yet, it remains unclear whether such LLM-judges can reliably assess tasks that require social or conversational judgment. We investigate how an LLM's conviction is changed when a task is reframed from a direct factual query to a Conversational Judgment Task. Our evaluation framework contrasts the model's performance on direct factual queries with its assessment of a speaker's correctness when the same information is presented within a minimal dialogue, effectively shifting the query from "Is this statement correct?" to "Is this speaker correct?". Furthermore, we apply pressure in the form of a simple rebuttal ("The previous answer is incorrect.") to both conditions. This perturbation allows us to measure how firmly the model maintains its position under conversational pressure. Our findings show that while some models like GPT-4o-mini reveal sycophantic tendencies under social framing tasks, others like Llama-8B-Instruct become overly-critical. We observe an average performance change of 9.24% across all models, demonstrating that even minimal dialogue context can significantly alter model judgment, underscoring conversational framing as a key factor in LLM-based evaluation. The proposed framework offers a reproducible methodology for diagnosing model conviction and contributes to the development of more trustworthy dialogue systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

AURA: A Diagnostic Framework for Tracking User Satisfaction of Interactive Planning Agents

The growing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in instruction-following and context-understanding lead to the era of agents with numerous applications. Among these, task planning agents have become especially prominent in realistic scenarios involving complex internal pipelines, such as context understanding, tool management, and response generation. However, existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate agent performance based on task completion as a proxy for overall effectiveness. We hypothesize that merely improving task completion is misaligned with maximizing user satisfaction, as users interact with the entire agentic process and not only the end result. To address this gap, we propose AURA, an Agent-User inteRaction Assessment framework that conceptualizes the behavioral stages of interactive task planning agents. AURA offers a comprehensive assessment of agent through a set of atomic LLM evaluation criteria, allowing researchers and practitioners to diagnose specific strengths and weaknesses within the agent's decision-making pipeline. Our analyses show that agents excel in different behavioral stages, with user satisfaction shaped by both outcomes and intermediate behaviors. We also highlight future directions, including systems that leverage multiple agents and the limitations of user simulators in task planning.

cs.CL↗