arXiv subjects

Ramayya Krishnan

Publications and source records attributed to Ramayya Krishnan.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Frontier AI performance across the business disciplines: a case-grounded benchmark of knowledge work and analytical reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) are improving rapidly as reflected in benchmark scores, yet these AI benchmarks largely test capabilities such as factual recall, narrow question answering, mathematical problem-solving, and coding and agentic tool-use. What remains poorly measured is AI progress on the analytical knowledge work white-collar professionals perform daily, including synthesizing complex information, exercising judgment under uncertainty and incomplete information, applying strategic and adversarial thinking in multi-stakeholder settings, weighing trade-offs, and producing defensible, structured analyses. This gap is even more pronounced for subjective components of such work, where success can be challenging to define. The "case method" form of education practiced by top business schools provides a natural foundation for addressing this measurement gap, and we construct BusinessCaseBench, a benchmark spanning hundreds of questions drawn from business cases across eighteen disciplines, each paired with a grading rubric derived from the expert-written instructor case solution. On BusinessCaseBench, frontier AI models already score highly against instructor rubrics, and capability within one model family improves substantially over two years. These results provide strong evidence that AI performance on this class of work is already high and rapidly improving, with implications for business schools, where case pedagogy trains undergraduates and MBAs in this kind of analytical reasoning, and for entry-level professional roles, where such skills have historically anchored early-career work.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Auditing Institutional Heterogeneity for Generative AI in Patient Education: A Large-Scale Study of 102 US Transplant Handbooks

Health systems are rapidly deploying generative AI assistants that answer patient questions from institution-authored education materials, on the premise that grounding in local content yields consistent guidance. Whether it does depends on a question not previously measured at scale: do the underlying documents themselves agree? We use a structured-output large language model judge to audit 5,730,465 pairwise comparisons across 102 patient-education handbooks from 23 US solid-organ transplant centers, paired with 1,115 patient-derived questions (TransplantQA). Four findings bear directly on deployment: (1) institutional editorial voice statistically transcends organ-type boundaries, with same-center handbooks agreeing across organs more than same-organ handbooks across centers (p = 0.0056); (2) information gaps fall disproportionately on topics central to underrepresented subgroups, with reproductive health showing double jeopardy: it is the single most-silent topic (82% absent) and the highest judge-rated clinical significance when present (86% high-significance disagreements); (3) divergence themes cluster into 991 topics, with immunosuppression and pregnancy timing among the highest-stakes themes; and (4) per-pair disagreement is predictable from question framing alone (AUC = 0.77). We discuss implications for deploying patient-facing generative AI in transplant care.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility

Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented. Most benchmarks rely on fixed, LLM-centric harnesses that require heavy integration, create test-production mismatch, and limit fair comparison across diverse agent designs. The root problem is the lack of an open, agent-agnostic assessment interface. We advocate Agentified Agent Assessment (AAA), where evaluation is performed by judge agents and all participants interact through standardized protocols: A2A for task management and MCP for tool access. Conventional benchmarking defines two separate interfaces, one for the benchmark and one for the agent, while AAA only needs one; this yields a generic, unified framework that separates assessment logic from agent implementation and enables reproducible, interoperable, and multi-agent evaluation. We further introduce AgentBeats as a concrete realization of AAA: we identify five practical operation modes that make standardized assessment compatible with real-world constraints on openness, privacy, and reproducibility. To evaluate our design at scale, we conduct two studies: a five-month open competition that drew 298 judge agents across 12 categories together with 467 subject agents from independent participants, showing that AAA applies across a heterogeneous range of benchmarks; and a case study on coding agents that confirms agentified evaluation preserves fidelity with the public record while surfacing previously missing head-to-head results, yielding research insights about agent design. Combining a community-scale field study and a controlled coding case study, we verify that AAA delivers coverage, practicality, and fidelity across heterogeneous scenarios at scale. Together, AAA and AgentBeats offer a clear path toward open, standardized, and reproducible agent assessment.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Toward Agentic Governance: What Shapes LLM-Agent Intervention in Public Forums?

LLM agents are increasingly used in moderation-relevant public forum workflows, where their choices to answer, acknowledge, repair, or decline are routinely challenged by users, platforms, and regulators. The same agent often returns different responses on identical content, so any defense based on the agent's behavior cannot be reliably reproduced. The variation is structural. Four deployment choices typically invisible to the operator each shift the agent's response rate, and their combinations can produce substantially different interventions on the same forum posts. The four choices are (1) which model version is currently served, which can change between calls without notice; (2) the model's weight-release status (open-weight, with weights publicly downloadable, vs. closed-weight, with weights held by the provider); (3) which provider serves the request; and (4) which system-prompt policy is in force. Across LLMs spanning both open-weight and closed-weight families, we find that the previously reported tendency to decline more on visible than hidden challenges aligns with the open/closed weight boundary in our panel more than with access surface. Every closed-weight cell declines more on visible challenges; every open-weight cell reverses this or shows no gap. Auditable forum-agent governance requires awareness of all four choices, not just the model name, since each independently shifts behavior.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

LLMs Know the Constraint But Do Not Use It: Activation Bottlenecks in Pragmatic Constraint Reasoning

When a salient surface cue competes with an implicit feasibility constraint, LLMs often fail -- but aggregate accuracy conflates genuine constraint inference with conservative defaulting. We formalize the distinction as conditional constraint activation: the constraint is internally encoded (Knowledge) symmetrically across constraint-present and -absent prompts (Symmetry), yet only sometimes routed into the decision (Routing) and repairable by a donor activation (Repair). A quartet diagnostic over 14 models reveals two failure modes; probes on two open weights decode the constraint above $88\%$, yet activation patching repairs one ($+6.4$ nats) and not the other ($-0.07$). On a mitigation frontier, no prompted intervention reaches the repair corner: all inflate conservative bias through a single mediation pathway -- prerequisite mention. Hidden-constraint failure is a routing problem, not a knowledge problem.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Same Question, Different Source, Different Answer: Auditing Source-Dependence in Medical Multi-Source RAG

A retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system deployed over a multi-author institutional corpus can give a different answer to the same question depending on which source it retrieves -- a failure mode the dominant single-gold-answer paradigm cannot diagnose. We argue that source-dependence is a missing axis of NLP evaluation, and that auditing it means shifting the unit of evaluation from answer correctness to the inter-source relationship. We make this concrete in transplant patient education, where institutional sources demonstrably disagree, releasing three artefacts: TransplantQA, a benchmark of real patient questions, each answered by grounding generation in multiple institutional handbooks as candidate sources; HERO-QA, a hierarchical retrieval strategy that grounds and audits each answer; and a structured-output judge that scores inter-source relationships on a validated 5-label taxonomy. At scale, better retrieval reveals far more disagreement than prior estimates suggested -- understating its prevalence, not its intensity. The framework is domain-agnostic and transfers to legal and educational RAG: measuring source-dependence is a responsibility for deployed multi-source NLP generally.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Chain Holds, the Answer Folds: Trace-Answer Dissociation in Reasoning Models Under Adversarial Pressure

Reasoning models are evaluated on single-turn benchmarks but deployed in multi-turn dialogue, where users push back on correct answers. Under sustained adversarial pressure we find a previously undocumented failure mode: the chain-of-thought stays factually correct from first turn to last while the emitted answer flips wrong. We call this unfaithful capitulation (UC) and isolate it with a $2\times 2$ latent-versus-behavioral framework that flip-rate metrics and single-turn faithfulness probes both miss. Across three datasets (MT-Consistency, MMLU-Pro, GSM8K), the latent-correct rate at the behavioral flip clusters near 50% in think mode and collapses to 11-15% under no_think -- paired, within-model causal evidence that reasoning creates the gap. Across models the effect tracks the reasoning channel (high in Qwen3-32B and GPT-OSS-20B, low in inline-CoT Gemma-4-31B-it). An independent GPT-4o judge corroborates $86\%$ of UC labels; a token-level probe shows the answer-slot argmax is correct in $84\%$ of UC cells; and a naive trace-anchored defense backfires. We release all trajectories, traces, and judge labels.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Do Agents Repair When Challenged -- or Just Reply? Challenge, Repair, and Public Correction in a Deployed Agent Forum

As large language model (LLM) agents are deployed in public interactive settings, a key question is whether their communities can sustain challenge, repair, and public correction, or merely produce norm-like language. We compare Moltbook, a live deployed agent forum, with five matched Reddit communities by tracing a three-step mechanism: whether discussions create threaded exchange, whether challenges elicit a response, and whether correction becomes visible to the wider thread. Relative to Reddit, Moltbook discussions are roughly ten times less threaded, leaving far fewer chances for challenge and response. When challenges do occur, the original author almost never returns (1.2% vs. 40.9% on Reddit), multi-turn continuation is nearly absent (0.1% vs. 38.5%), and we detect no repairs under a shared conservative protocol. A non-challenge baseline within Reddit suggests this gap is linked to challenge, not simply deeper threading. These results indicate that social alignment depends not only on producing norm-aware language, but on sustaining the interactional processes through which communities teach, enforce, and revise norms. This matters for safety, because correction is increasingly decentralized, and for fairness, because communities differ in how they expect participants to engage with challenge.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Model Says Walk: How Surface Heuristics Override Implicit Constraints in LLM Reasoning

Large language models fail when a salient surface cue conflicts with an unstated feasibility constraint. We introduce the Heuristic Override Benchmark (HOB): 500 instances spanning 4 heuristic families and 5 constraint families, with minimal pairs and explicitness gradients. We pair HOB with a falsifiable behavioral characterization following a diagnose-measure-bridge-treat arc. Causal-behavioral analysis of the car wash problem across six models reveals context-independent sigmoid heuristics: the distance cue has 8.7 to 38 times more influence than the goal, and attribution better matches keyword association than compositional inference. Across 14 models, strict 10/10 evaluation shows that no model exceeds 75%, and presence constraints are hardest at 44%. A minimal hint improves performance by 15 pp, suggesting a constraint-inference failure rather than missing knowledge. However, 12 of 14 models perform worse when the constraint is removed, by up to 39 pp, revealing conservative bias. A thinking-mode ablation on Gemini 3.1 Pro drops performance from 74.6% with thinking on to 58.4% with thinking off, while explicit goal decomposition recovers it to 71.2%. Thus, internal deliberation does useful work, and explicit prompting can partially substitute for it. Reasoning models do not categorically outperform non-reasoning peers: after controlling for capability rank, the residual reasoning-mode effect is 1.8 pp and is not significant. Parametric probes show that the sigmoid pattern generalizes to cost, efficiency, and semantic-similarity heuristics. Goal-decomposition prompting improves performance by 5.0 pp, compared with 3.1 pp for generic chain-of-thought, isolating constraint enumeration as the active ingredient. Overall, heuristic override is a systematic reasoning vulnerability with a quantified locus in inference order, not knowledge, and a tested intervention.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

When Documents Disagree: Measuring Institutional Variation in Transplant Guidance with Retrieval-Augmented Language Models

Patient education materials for solid-organ transplantation vary substantially across U.S. centers, yet no systematic method exists to quantify this heterogeneity at scale. We introduce a framework that grounds the same patient questions in different centers' handbooks using retrieval-augmented language models and compares the resulting answers using a five-label consistency taxonomy. Applied to 102 handbooks from 23 centers and 1,115 benchmark questions, the framework quantifies heterogeneity across four dimensions: question, topic, organ, and center. We find that 20.8% of non-absent pairwise comparisons exhibit clinically meaningful divergence, concentrated in condition monitoring and lifestyle topics. Coverage gaps are even more prominent: 96.2% of question-handbook pairs miss relevant content, with reproductive health at 95.1% absence. Center-level divergence profiles are stable and interpretable, where heterogeneity reflects systematic institutional differences, likely due to patient diversity. These findings expose an information gap in transplant patient education materials, with document-grounded medical question answering highlighting opportunities for content improvement.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

Consistency of Large Reasoning Models Under Multi-Turn Attacks

Large reasoning models with reasoning capabilities achieve state-of-the-art performance on complex tasks, but their robustness under multi-turn adversarial pressure remains underexplored. We evaluate nine frontier reasoning models under adversarial attacks. Our findings reveal that reasoning confers meaningful but incomplete robustness: most reasoning models studied significantly outperform instruction-tuned baselines, yet all exhibit distinct vulnerability profiles, with misleading suggestions universally effective and social pressure showing model-specific efficacy. Through trajectory analysis, we identify five failure modes (Self-Doubt, Social Conformity, Suggestion Hijacking, Emotional Susceptibility, and Reasoning Fatigue) with the first two accounting for 50% of failures. We further demonstrate that Confidence-Aware Response Generation (CARG), effective for standard LLMs, fails for reasoning models due to overconfidence induced by extended reasoning traces; counterintuitively, random confidence embedding outperforms targeted extraction. Our results highlight that reasoning capabilities do not automatically confer adversarial robustness and that confidence-based defenses require fundamental redesign for reasoning models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Closing Reasoning Gaps in Clinical Agents with Differential Reasoning Learning

Clinical decision support requires not only correct answers but also clinically valid reasoning. We propose Differential Reasoning Learning (DRL), a framework that improves clinical agents by learning from reasoning discrepancies. From reference reasoning rationales (e.g., physician-authored clinical rationale, clinical guidelines, or outputs from more capable models) and the agent's free-form chain-of-thought (CoT), DRL extracts reasoning graphs as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and performs a clinically weighted graph edit distance (GED)-based discrepancy analysis. An LLM-as-a-judge aligns semantically equivalent nodes and diagnoses discrepancies between graphs. These graph-level discrepancy diagnostics are converted into natural-language instructions and stored in a Differential Reasoning Knowledge Base (DR-KB). At inference, we retrieve top-$k$ instructions via Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to augment the agent prompt and patch likely logic gaps. Evaluation on open medical question answering (QA) benchmarks and a Return Visit Admissions (RVA) prediction task from internal clinical data demonstrates gains over baselines, improving both final-answer accuracy and reasoning fidelity. Ablation studies confirm gains from infusing reference reasoning rationales and the top-$k$ retrieval strategy. Clinicians' review of the output provides further assurance of the approach. Together, results suggest that DRL supports more reliable clinical decision-making in complex reasoning scenarios and offers a practical mechanism for deployment under limited token budgets.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

ML Compass: Navigating Capability, Cost, and Compliance Trade-offs in AI Model Deployment

We study how organizations should select among competing AI models when user utility, deployment costs, and compliance requirements jointly matter. Widely used capability leaderboards do not translate directly into deployment decisions, creating a capability -- deployment gap; to bridge it, we take a systems-level view in which model choice is tied to application outcomes, operating constraints, and a capability-cost frontier. We develop ML Compass, a framework that treats model selection as constrained optimization over this frontier. On the theory side, we characterize optimal model configurations under a parametric frontier and show a three-regime structure in optimal internal measures: some dimensions are pinned at compliance minima, some saturate at maximum levels, and the remainder take interior values governed by frontier curvature. We derive comparative statics that quantify how budget changes, regulatory tightening, and technological progress propagate across capability dimensions and costs. On the implementation side, we propose a pipeline that (i) extracts low-dimensional internal measures from heterogeneous model descriptors, (ii) estimates an empirical frontier from capability and cost data, (iii) learns a user- or task-specific utility function from interaction outcome data, and (iv) uses these components to target capability-cost profiles and recommend models. We validate ML Compass with two case studies: a general-purpose conversational setting using the PRISM Alignment dataset and a healthcare setting using a custom dataset we build using HealthBench. In both environments, our framework produces recommendations -- and deployment-aware leaderboards based on predicted deployment value under constraints -- that can differ materially from capability-only rankings, and clarifies how trade-offs between capability, cost, and safety shape optimal model choice.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Time-To-Inconsistency: A Survival Analysis of Large Language Model Robustness to Adversarial Attacks

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized conversational AI, yet their robustness in extended multi-turn dialogues remains poorly understood. Existing evaluation frameworks focus on static benchmarks and single-turn assessments, failing to capture the temporal dynamics of conversational degradation that characterize real-world interactions. In this work, we present a large-scale survival analysis of conversational robustness, modeling failure as a time-to-event process over 36,951 turns from 9 state-of-the-art LLMs on the MT-Consistency benchmark. Our framework combines Cox proportional hazards, Accelerated Failure Time (AFT), and Random Survival Forest models with simple semantic drift features. We find that abrupt prompt-to-prompt semantic drift sharply increases the hazard of inconsistency, whereas cumulative drift is counterintuitively \emph{protective}, suggesting adaptation in conversations that survive multiple shifts. AFT models with model-drift interactions achieve the best combination of discrimination and calibration, and proportional hazards checks reveal systematic violations for key drift covariates, explaining the limitations of Cox-style modeling in this setting. Finally, we show that a lightweight AFT model can be turned into a turn-level risk monitor that flags most failing conversations several turns before the first inconsistent answer while keeping false alerts modest. These results establish survival analysis as a powerful paradigm for evaluating multi-turn robustness and for designing practical safeguards for conversational AI systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Making a Case for Research Collaboration Between Artificial Intelligence and Operations Research Experts

In 2021, INFORMS, ACM SIGAI, and the Computing Community Consortium (CCC) hosted three workshops to explore synergies between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Operations Research (OR) to improve decision-making. The workshops aimed to create a unified research vision for AI/OR collaboration, focusing on overcoming cultural differences and maximizing societal impact. The first two workshops addressed technological innovations, applications, and trustworthy AI development, while the final workshop highlighted specific areas for AI/OR integration. Participants discussed "Challenge Problems" and strategies for combining AI and OR techniques. This report outlines five key recommendations to enhance AI/OR collaboration: 1) Funding Opportunities, 2) Joint Education, 3) Long-term Research Programs, 4) Aligning Conferences/Journals, and 5) Benchmark Creation.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Beyond Single-Turn: A Survey on Multi-Turn Interactions with Large Language Models

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved single-turn task performance, yet real-world applications increasingly demand sophisticated multi-turn interactions. This survey provides a comprehensive review of recent progress in evaluating and enhancing multi-turn LLM interactions. Centered on a task-oriented taxonomy-spanning instruction following in domains such as mathematics and coding, and conversational engagement in role-playing, healthcare, education, and adversarial jailbreak settings-we systematically examine the challenges of maintaining context, coherence, fairness, and responsiveness across prolonged dialogues. We organize existing benchmarks and datasets into coherent categories reflecting the evolving landscape of multi-turn dialogue evaluation, and review a broad spectrum of enhancement methodologies, including model-centric strategies (in-context learning, supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and architectural innovations), external integration approaches (memory augmentation, retrieval-based methods, and knowledge graphs), and agent-based techniques for collaborative interaction. Finally, we identify open challenges and promising directions for future research to further improve the robustness and effectiveness of multi-turn LLM interactions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Firm or Fickle? Evaluating Large Language Models Consistency in Sequential Interactions

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities across various tasks, but their deployment in high-stake domains requires consistent and coherent behavior across multiple rounds of user interaction. This paper introduces a comprehensive framework for evaluating and improving LLM response consistency, making three key contributions. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/yubol-bobo/MT-Consistency. First, we introduce Position-Weighted Consistency (PWC), a metric designed to capture both the importance of early-stage stability and recovery patterns in multi-turn interactions. Second, we present MT-Consistency, a carefully curated benchmark dataset spanning diverse domains and difficulty levels, specifically designed to evaluate LLM consistency under various challenging follow-up scenarios. Third, we introduce Confidence-Aware Response Generation (CARG), a framework that significantly improves response stability by explicitly integrating internal model confidence scores during the generation process. Experimental results demonstrate that CARG significantly improves response stability without sacrificing accuracy, offering a practical path toward more dependable LLM behavior in critical, real-world deployments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Reliability, Resilience and Human Factors Engineering for Trustworthy AI Systems

As AI systems become integral to critical operations across industries and services, ensuring their reliability and safety is essential. We offer a framework that integrates established reliability and resilience engineering principles into AI systems. By applying traditional metrics such as failure rate and Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) along with resilience engineering and human reliability analysis, we propose an integrate framework to manage AI system performance, and prevent or efficiently recover from failures. Our work adapts classical engineering methods to AI systems and outlines a research agenda for future technical studies. We apply our framework to a real-world AI system, using system status data from platforms such as openAI, to demonstrate its practical applicability. This framework aligns with emerging global standards and regulatory frameworks, providing a methodology to enhance the trustworthiness of AI systems. Our aim is to guide policy, regulation, and the development of reliable, safe, and adaptable AI technologies capable of consistent performance in real-world environments.

cs.AI↗