arXiv subjects

Pratik S. Sachdeva

Publications and source records attributed to Pratik S. Sachdeva.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Fabricated Front: Generative AI and the Opacity of Workplace Performance

Generative AI (GenAI) has become a fixture of workplace life. Current research asks chiefly what this implies for jobs and outputs, measured in productivity, displacement, or bias. What remains underexamined are the interactional reconfigurations that GenAI produces at work. The emerging concept of effort opacity has begun to fill this gap by highlighting the systematic decoupling of observable output from human engagement. When GenAI makes interactional cues less diagnostic, it weakens the reciprocal exchange that sustains collaborative trust. Extending this account of effort opacity, we examine the interactional mechanics that produce opacity in everyday workplace encounters. Drawing on Erving Goffman's dramaturgical framework and 1,250 interview transcripts from Anthropic's AI Interviewer dataset, we identify five opacity mechanisms through which workplace fronts are reorganized: voice (whose stance the words index), provenance (who can stand behind the artifact), vulnerability (whether the worker is uncertain), attention (whether the worker is engaged), and investment (how much labor the output reflects). We show that professionals defend the identity mechanisms while freely producing opacity around the labor mechanisms, and trace this asymmetry to the output-centered organization of contemporary work, where deliverables already stand in for the labor process that produced them. The governance task, accordingly, is one of involvement management: specifying which forms of human involvement (attention, effort, judgment) must remain inspectable, and to whom. Workplace AI policies built on universal disclosure will systematically misrecognize a social field in which inspectability is already audience-relative.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Rating the Raters: Rasch Measurement Theory for LLM Evaluation

LLMs now sit on every side of evaluation: as examinees scored on benchmarks, judges of other models' outputs, and raters of human-generated content. Each paradigm can be viewed as a measurement problem, where a latent property of an object is probed with items from an instrument (e.g., benchmark) by judges or raters. Standard evaluation practices often neglect the contributions of each core component to the end result, limiting our understanding of what is being measured. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) is well-suited to this problem. RMT decomposes ordinal ratings into separable facets on a common scale. It further provides a battery of diagnostics that can identify miscalibrated measurements and rater biases. We present a case study of RMT applied to the LLM-as-rater paradigm using the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, whose construct was itself built under RMT. We fit a series of many-facet Rasch models to annotations from nine LLMs spanning families and capability levels. Our analyses show that LLMs systematically differ from human raters in severity, item-level calibration, question-order robustness, target-identity sensitivity, and rating scale use, all of which standard evaluation practice would largely obscure. Overall, we argue that RMT belongs in the toolkit for evaluating LLM-as-examinee, -judge, and -rater paradigms.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The Fragility Of Moral Judgment In Large Language Models

People increasingly use large language models (LLMs) for everyday moral and interpersonal guidance, yet these systems cannot interrogate missing context and judge dilemmas as presented. We introduce a perturbation framework for testing the stability and manipulability of LLM moral judgments while holding the underlying moral conflict constant. Using 2,939 dilemmas from r/AmItheAsshole (January-March 2025), we generate three families of content perturbations: surface edits (lexical/structural noise), point-of-view shifts (voice and stance neutralization), and persuasion cues (self-positioning, social proof, pattern admissions, victim framing). We also vary the evaluation protocol (output ordering, instruction placement, and unstructured prompting). We evaluated all variants with four models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek V3, Qwen2.5-72B) (N=129,156 judgments). Surface perturbations produce low flip rates (7.5%), largely within the self-consistency noise floor (4-13%), whereas point-of-view shifts induce substantially higher instability (24.3%). A large subset of dilemmas (37.9%) is robust to surface noise yet flips under perspective changes, indicating that models condition on narrative voice as a pragmatic cue. Instability concentrates in morally ambiguous cases; scenarios where no party is assigned blame are most susceptible. Persuasion perturbations yield systematic directional shifts. Protocol choices dominate all other factors: agreement between structured protocols is only 67.6% (kappa=0.55), and only 35.7% of model-scenario units match across all three protocols. These results show that LLM moral judgments are co-produced by narrative form and task scaffolding, raising reproducibility and equity concerns when outcomes depend on presentation skill rather than moral substance.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Interaction Protocol Shapes Moral Judgment in Multi-Agent Debate

As agentic AI systems are deployed in advisory and evaluative roles, understanding how multi-agent interactions shape behavior becomes essential. Multi-agent debate has been studied as a mechanism to improve accuracy, but less is known about how debate structure -- the interaction protocol -- affects the values, dynamics, and consensus patterns that emerge when models navigate contested, real-world decisions. We address this gap by facilitating multi-agent debates among three models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) to collectively assign blame in 1,000 everyday dilemmas from Reddit's ``Am I the Asshole'' community. We compare synchronous (parallel) and round-robin (sequential) interaction protocols, mirroring two fundamental ways multi-agent systems are orchestrated in practice. Across more than 30,000 total debates, our findings show striking behavioral differences, which we characterize through two dynamics: inertia and conformity. In the synchronous setting, GPT-4.1 showed stronger inertia (0.6-3.1% revision rates) than either Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Gemini 2.0 Flash (28-41% revision rates). Meanwhile, in round-robin debates, GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash stood out as highly conforming relative to Claude 3.7 Sonnet, with their verdict behavior strongly shaped by order effects. We further characterized the values invoked during debate, finding that GPT-4.1 emphasized personal autonomy and honest communication relative to its debate partners, while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash prioritized empathetic dialogue. Together, these results show how interaction protocol shapes moral reasoning in multi-turn debates, establishing it as a substantive sociotechnical design consideration in multi-agent systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Normative Evaluation of Large Language Models with Everyday Moral Dilemmas

The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) has spurred extensive research into their encoded moral norms and decision-making processes. Much of this research relies on prompting LLMs with survey-style questions to assess how well models are aligned with certain demographic groups, moral beliefs, or political ideologies. While informative, the adherence of these approaches to relatively superficial constructs tends to oversimplify the complexity and nuance underlying everyday moral dilemmas. We argue that auditing LLMs along more detailed axes of human interaction is of paramount importance to better assess the degree to which they may impact human beliefs and actions. To this end, we evaluate LLMs on complex, everyday moral dilemmas sourced from the "Am I the Asshole" (AITA) community on Reddit, where users seek moral judgments on everyday conflicts from other community members. We prompted seven LLMs to assign blame and provide explanations for over 10,000 AITA moral dilemmas. We then compared the LLMs' judgments and explanations to those of Redditors and to each other, aiming to uncover patterns in their moral reasoning. Our results demonstrate that large language models exhibit distinct patterns of moral judgment, varying substantially from human evaluations on the AITA subreddit. LLMs demonstrate moderate to high self-consistency but low inter-model agreement. Further analysis of model explanations reveals distinct patterns in how models invoke various moral principles. These findings highlight the complexity of implementing consistent moral reasoning in artificial systems and the need for careful evaluation of how different models approach ethical judgment. As LLMs continue to be used in roles requiring ethical decision-making such as therapists and companions, careful evaluation is crucial to mitigate potential biases and limitations.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2017

On the stability of strange dwarf hybrid stars

We investigate the stability of stars with a density discontinuity between a high-density core and a very low density mantle. Previous work on "strange dwarfs" suggested that such a discontinuity could stabilize stars that would have been classified as unstable by the conventional criteria based on extrema in the mass-radius relation. We investigate the stability of such stars by numerically solving the Sturm-Liouville equations for the lowest-energy modes of the star. We find that the conventional criteria are correct, and strange dwarfs are not stable.

astro-ph.HE↗