arXiv subjects

Rachel Rudinger

Publications and source records attributed to Rachel Rudinger.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Check The Scoreboard: An Analysis of Scoring Schemes on Multiple-Choice Evaluation

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks in NLP use number-right scoring (accuracy), but in educational testing, the scoring scheme, the combination of the response mode models follow and the rule for grading responses, is a key design choice that dictates which abilities to reward. We examine how alternatives to number right change what MCQA measures with six education-inspired schemes that assess abilities beyond accuracy: distractor elimination, abstention, confidence calibration, and self-correction. On LLM benchmarks, these schemes: 1) shift rankings of 31 LLMs beyond rephrased number right prompts; 2) better predict the LLMs users prefer in LLM Arena; and 3) reveal distinct model capabilities, like that GPT-5 rarely abstains and readily self-corrects, while weaker open-weight models often abstain and hesitate to eliminate choices. Given the benefits of alternative scoring schemes, we discuss ways to extend them to tasks beyond MCQA.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

VibeJam: A User Study Platform for Web Development with Agents

Programming with AI is increasingly agentic, users prompt LLMs to directly edit their code and review the changes, with adoption growing especially for web development tasks. Despite this growth, most NLP work uses offline evaluation and lacks support for online studies, losing insights into how programmers truly use coding agents. We release VibeJam, a browser-based user study platform for users to collaborate with AI agents to develop websites. VibeJam enables agent customization and uses the open-source Aider agent by default, and to mirror downstream use, we add diff review, chat and plan modes, and live website previews. In a pilot study with 55 released, game-based website creation tasks, five experienced AI programmers rate our system as fun, simple, and resembling commercial tools, while 13 junior students use VibeJam to make websites of higher quality than agents in the same task. We open-source VibeJam to spur extensions and support studies on how coding agents can help users.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Effect of Perceived Race and Gender on Police Language Use: Experimental Evidence from VR Simulations

Against the backdrop of violence in police interactions with the U.S. public, we explore how deferentially police officers speak to virtual characters depicted as Black adult males in vir- tual reality (VR) simulations. We evaluate the effect of seeing and communicating with these characters through a causal in- ference lens, where the assignment of the Black man character to a police officer and simulation is the treatment variable. Our (marginal) average treatment effect AT E measures the social impact of the character on the deference of officer statements with each turn of the conversation. Soberingly, we find that most officers speak less deferentially to Black man characters, except for White, biracial, and multiracial female officers, es- pecially in settings where the VR character was known to be a suspect. Across a full conversation of a typical VR scene, these marginal AT Es can result in notable changes in def- erence of tone (two to several points difference on a scale of 0-10), above and beyond that due to the initial effect of per- ceiving a Black male character. Even more disconcerting is that this can contribute to conversation breakdowns that po- tentially result in violence or danger to both the public and the police. We also explored the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for ATE estimation. From our methods com- parison analysis, including model validation against synthetic data, we provide unique scientific insights on LLM-assisted methodologies for ATE estimation. As such, for ATE esti- mation with multilevel data with text, we recommend mixed effects models with the inverse propensity treatment weighted (iptw) approach, which utilized an LLM for text feature cre- ation. While we also tested LLMs for finetuning prediction models ultimately for ATE estimation, we conclude they are an area for further development and refinement.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Language Models Encode the Contextual Truth of Propositions

Prior work has shown that LLMs encode the truth of factual propositions along linear directions in activation space. It's unclear how these representations extend to contextual truth: propositions whose truth is determined by in-context evidence rather than world knowledge. We show that LLMs maintain a linear representation of contextual truth that persists across structurally different output policies, even when the output doesn't require the model to determine a proposition's truth, and show causal evidence via steering experiments. Using the transcripts from a collaborative vision-language task that requires two LLMs to maintain a shared common ground, we show that truth representations of a proposition are significantly swayed by partner assertions about that proposition, even when the LLM has enough evidence to determine its truth. We find evidence that propositions near the decision boundary are more susceptible to having their truth shifted through partner assertions. Separating representation from output distinguish two forms of sycophancy that output behavior alone cannot: the model may accommodate a false proposition while continuing to represent it as false, or shift its representation across the boundary. The latter is 2.59x more common when the model agrees by restating the false claim explicitly than when it agrees implicitly.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Sycophancy Undermines Epistemic Vigilance in Cooperative Vision-Language Tasks

To maintain common ground in cooperative conversation, humans iteratively update their beliefs as conversation participants share new information; participants who are epistemically vigilant detect when new information conflicts with prior beliefs and take steps to repair these conflicts. In order for AI systems to serve as reliable partners in complex cooperative tasks, they must similarly weigh incoming information against their own private evidence and shared context and appropriately surface inconsistencies when they arise. To measure the epistemic vigilance of vision-language models in cooperative settings, we present an information-asymmetric, dialog-based "spot-the-difference" task. Two models are privately shown one image each, and must determine through conversation whether the images are identical or, if not, identify the difference. Models routinely fail at this: they frequently overlook key evidence in their private image in favor of agreeing with their conversational partner, even when their agreement is unwarranted. We relate these violations of epistemic vigilance to the broader behavior of sycophancy, which manifests itself in cooperative goal-oriented dialog as over-accommodation and weak evidential grounding. Our results show that model steering to reduce sycophancy with a vector learned from task-agnostic sycophancy examples can reduce epistemic vigilance-related errors, making models more faithful reporters of their evidence, and in turn, more reliable partners in information-asymmetric cooperative tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

(Im)Paired Programming: Coding Agents Improve Productivity but Harm Understanding

Coding agents (e.g., Cursor) improve developer productivity by optimizing task completion, but shifting users from writing code to prompting and reviewing may harm their understanding, impeding oversight, learning, and communication. To probe this, we have 54 students create a website with one of two AI systems: an agent that edits user code; or a chatbot where users write code alone or adapt generic code snippets. We test understanding via comprehension questions and a task where users extend their code without agents, showing: (1) While agents aid initial task completion, they harm users' code comprehension and thus do not prepare users to extend their code; (2) Low-effort agent interaction types, like copy+paste prompts and auto-accepted edits, are linked with lower comprehension; and (3) Despite self-reported weaker understanding, users still prefer coding agents because they are quick and easy to use. While users stay in the loop for coding workflows, understanding should not be forgotten. Towards this goal, we distill our analyses into future research directions for coding agent developers: dissuading low-effort prompting, creating readable code, and promoting active engagement.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

On the Role of Citations in Preference Data

Many NLP tasks require systems to provide attribution in their outputs--i.e. citations to grounding sources. Attribution serves as a bulwark against model hallucination and as a means for users to verify the credibility of model outputs. Yet, it is unclear how humans and LLMs evaluate citations when comparing outputs, a process central to reward modeling and modern LLM post-training. This paper studies the role of citations in the preferences of human judges and four open-source LLMs within the context of scientific question answering, leveraging mixed effects models to investigate the influence of citations on pairwise judgments. Among our key findings are (1) that humans prefer more diverse citations but fewer overall, and (2) that LLMs show some citation-related preferences compared to humans, despite lacking access to the sources, but these preferences depend on the data and specific models. We further discuss the implications of our findings for preference data collection.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

DRACULA: Hunting for the Actions Users Want Deep Research Agents to Execute

Scientific Deep Research (DR) agents answer user queries by synthesizing research papers into multi-section reports. User feedback can improve their utility, but existing protocols only score the final report, making it hard to study and learn which intermediate actions DR agents should take to improve reports. We collect DRACULA, the first dataset with user feedback on intermediate actions for DR. Over five weeks, nineteen expert CS researchers ask queries to a DR system that proposes actions (e.g., "Add a section on datasets"). Our users select actions they prefer, then judge whether an output report applied their selections successfully, yielding 8,103 action preferences and 5,230 execution judgments. After confirming a DR agent can execute DRACULA's actions, we study the predictability of user-preferred actions via simulation-how well LLMs predict the actions users select-a step toward learning to generate useful actions. We discover: (1) LLM judges initially struggle to predict action selections, but improve most when using a user's full selection history, rather than self-reported or extrapolated user context signals; (2) Users' selections for the same query differ based on unstated goals, bottlenecking simulation and motivating affordances that let users steer reports; and (3) Our simulation results inform an online intervention that generates new actions based on the user's past interactions, which users pick most often in follow-up studies. Overall, while work extensively studies execution, DRACULA reveals a key challenge is deciding which actions to execute in the first place. We open-source DRACULA's study design, user feedback, and simulation tasks to spur future work on action feedback for long-horizon agents.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Reheat Nachos for Dinner? Evaluating AI Support for Cross-Cultural Communication of Neologisms

Neologisms and emerging slang are central to daily conversation, yet challenging for non-native speakers (NNS) to interpret and use appropriately in cross-cultural communication with native speakers (NS). NNS increasingly make use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to learn these words. We study the utility of such tools in mediating an informal communication scenario through a human-subjects study (N=234): NNS participants learn English neologisms with AI support, write messages using the learned word to an NS friend, and judge contextual appropriateness of the neologism in two provided writing samples. Using both NS evaluator-rated communicative competence of NNS-produced writing and NNS' contextual appropriateness judgments, we compare three AI-based support conditions: AI Definition, AI Rewrite into simpler English, AI Explanation of meaning and usage, and Non-AI Dictionary for comparison. We show that AI Explanation yields the largest gains over no support in NS-rated competence, while contextual appropriateness judgments show indifference across support. NNS participants' self-reported perceptions tend to overestimate NS ratings, revealing a mismatch between perceived and actual competence. We further observe a significant gap between NNS- and NS-produced writing, highlighting the limitations of current AI tools and informing design for future tools.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

DiscoTrace: Representing and Comparing Answering Strategies of Humans and LLMs in Information-Seeking Question Answering

We introduce DiscoTrace, a method to identify the rhetorical strategies answerers use when responding to information-seeking questions. DiscoTrace represents answers as a sequence of question-related discourse acts paired with interpretations of the original question, annotated on top of rhetorical structure theory parses. Applying DiscoTrace to answers from nine different communities reveals that communities have diverse preferences for answer construction. In contrast, LLMs do not exhibit rhetorical diversity in their answers, even when prompted to mimic specific human community answering guidelines. LLMs also systematically opt for breadth, addressing interpretations of questions that human answerers choose not to address. The rich, community-sensitive answering behavior structurally revealed by DiscoTrace can guide the development of pragmatic LLM answerers that are more attuned to contextual information needs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) is standard in NLP, but benchmarks lack rigorous quality control. We present BenchMarker, an education-inspired toolkit using LLM judges to flag three common MCQ flaws: 1) contamination: items appearing exactly online; 2) shortcuts: cues in the choices that enable guessing; and 3) writing errors: structural/grammatical issues based on a 19-rule education rubric. We validate BenchMarker with human annotations, then run the tool to audit 12 benchmarks, revealing: 1) flaws persist in MCQA benchmarks, especially automatically-made and crowdsourced data - we detect 47% of TruthfulQA appears online and 100% of HellaSwag violates multiple writing rules; 2) contaminated MCQs tend to inflate accuracy, while writing errors tend to lower it and change rankings beyond random; and 3) prior benchmark repairs address their targeted issues (i.e., lowering accuracy with LLM-written distractors), but inadvertently add new flaws (i.e. implausible distractors, many correct answers). Overall, flaws in MCQs degrade NLP evaluation, but education research offers a path forward. We release BenchMarker to bridge the fields and improve MCQA benchmark design.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Take Out Your Calculators: Estimating the Real Difficulty of Question Items with LLM Student Simulations

Standardized math assessments require expensive human pilot studies to establish the difficulty of test items. We investigate the predictive value of open-source large language models (LLMs) for evaluating the difficulty of multiple-choice math questions for real-world students. We show that, while LLMs are poor direct judges of problem difficulty, simulation-based approaches with LLMs yield promising results under the right conditions. Under the proposed approach, we simulate a ``classroom'' of 4th, 8th, or 12th-grade students by prompting the LLM to role-play students of varying proficiency levels. We use the outcomes of these simulations to fit Item Response Theory (IRT) models, comparing learned difficulty parameters for items to their real-world difficulties, as determined by item-level statistics furnished by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). We observe correlations as high as 0.75, 0.76, and 0.82 for grades 4, 8, and 12, respectively, on the item-level correctness rates. In our simulations, we experiment on math MCQs with different ``classroom sizes,'' showing tradeoffs between computation size and accuracy. We find that role-plays with diverse-named students improve predictions (compared to student IDs), and stratifying names across gender and race further improves predictions. Our results show that LLMs with relatively weaker mathematical abilities (Gemma) actually yield better real-world difficulty predictions than mathematically stronger models (Llama and Qwen), further underscoring the suitability of these models for the task.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Test-Time Reasoners Are Strategic Multiple-Choice Test-Takers

Large language models (LLMs) now give reasoning before answering, excelling in tasks like multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). Yet, a concern is that LLMs do not solve MCQs as intended, as work finds LLMs sans reasoning succeed in MCQA without using the question, i.e., choices-only. Such partial-input success is often linked to trivial shortcuts, but reasoning traces could reveal if choices-only strategies are truly shallow. To examine these strategies, we have reasoning LLMs solve MCQs in full and choices-only inputs; test-time reasoning often boosts accuracy in full and in choices-only, half the time. While possibly due to shallow shortcuts, choices-only success is barely affected by the length of reasoning traces, and after finding traces pass faithfulness tests, we show they use less problematic strategies like inferring missing questions. In all, we challenge claims that partial-input success is always a flaw, so we propose how reasoning traces could separate problematic data from less problematic reasoning.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Arguments that Alter Minds: LLM Rationales Sway Human (and LLM) Notions of Plausibility

We investigate the degree to which human (and LLM) plausibility judgments of multiple-choice commonsense benchmark answers are subject to influence by (im)plausibility arguments for or against an answer, in particular, using rationales generated by LLMs. We collect 3,000 plausibility judgments from humans and another 13,600 judgments from LLMs. Overall, we observe increases and decreases in mean human plausibility ratings in the presence of LLM-generated PRO and CON rationales, respectively, suggesting that, on the whole, human judges find these rationales convincing. Experiments with LLMs reveal similar patterns of influence. Our findings demonstrate a novel use of LLMs for studying aspects of human cognition, while also raising practical concerns that, even in domains where humans are ``experts'' (i.e., common sense), LLMs have the potential to exert considerable influence on people's beliefs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

A Good Plan is Hard to Find: Aligning Models with Preferences is Misaligned with What Helps Users

To assist users in complex tasks, LLMs generate plans: step-by-step instructions towards a goal. While alignment methods aim to ensure LLM plans are helpful, they train (RLHF) or evaluate (ChatbotArena) on what users prefer, assuming this reflects what helps them. We test this with Planorama: an interface where 126 users answer 300 multi-step questions with LLM plans. We get 4388 plan executions and 5584 comparisons to measure plan helpfulness (QA success) and user preferences on plans, and recreate the setup in agents and reward models to see if they simulate or prefer what helps users. We expose: 1) user/model preferences and agent success do not accurately predict which plans help users, so common alignment feedback can misalign with helpfulness; 2) this gap is not due to user-specific preferences, as users are similarly successful when using plans they prefer/disprefer; 3) surface-level cues like brevity and question similarity strongly link to preferences, but such biases fail to predict helpfulness. In all, we argue aligning helpful LLMs needs feedback from real user interactions, not just preferences of what looks helpful, so we discuss the plan NLP researchers can execute to solve this problem.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

'Rich Dad, Poor Lad': How do Large Language Models Contextualize Socioeconomic Factors in College Admission ?

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in high-stakes domains, yet how they reason about socially sensitive decisions remains underexplored. We present a large-scale audit of LLMs' treatment of socioeconomic status (SES) in college admissions decisions using a novel dual-process framework inspired by cognitive science. Leveraging a synthetic dataset of 30,000 applicant profiles grounded in real-world correlations, we prompt 4 open-source LLMs (Qwen 2, Mistral v0.3, Gemma 2, Llama 3.1) under 2 modes: a fast, decision-only setup (System 1) and a slower, explanation-based setup (System 2). Results from 5 million prompts reveal that LLMs consistently favor low-SES applicants -- even when controlling for academic performance -- and that System 2 amplifies this tendency by explicitly invoking SES as compensatory justification, highlighting both their potential and volatility as decision-makers. We then propose DPAF, a dual-process audit framework to probe LLMs' reasoning behaviors in sensitive applications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Multiple LLM Agents Debate for Equitable Cultural Alignment

Large Language Models (LLMs) need to adapt their predictions to diverse cultural contexts to benefit diverse communities across the world. While previous efforts have focused on single-LLM, single-turn approaches, we propose to exploit the complementary strengths of multiple LLMs to promote cultural adaptability. We introduce a Multi-Agent Debate framework, where two LLM-based agents debate over a cultural scenario and collaboratively reach a final decision. We propose two variants: one where either LLM agents exclusively debate and another where they dynamically choose between self-reflection and debate during their turns. We evaluate these approaches on 7 open-weight LLMs (and 21 LLM combinations) using the NormAd-ETI benchmark for social etiquette norms in 75 countries. Experiments show that debate improves both overall accuracy and cultural group parity over single-LLM baselines. Notably, multi-agent debate enables relatively small LLMs (7-9B) to achieve accuracies comparable to that of a much larger model (27B parameters).

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Understanding Common Ground Misalignment in Goal-Oriented Dialog: A Case-Study with Ubuntu Chat Logs

While it is commonly accepted that maintaining common ground plays a role in conversational success, little prior research exists connecting conversational grounding to success in task-oriented conversations. We study failures of grounding in the Ubuntu IRC dataset, where participants use text-only communication to resolve technical issues. We find that disruptions in conversational flow often stem from a misalignment in common ground, driven by a divergence in beliefs and assumptions held by participants. These disruptions, which we call conversational friction, significantly correlate with task success. We find that although LLMs can identify overt cases of conversational friction, they struggle with subtler and more context-dependent instances requiring pragmatic or domain-specific reasoning.

cs.CL↗