EXPLORE THE ARCHIVE

Vasu Sharma

Publications and source records attributed to Vasu Sharma.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

MUDDLE: Measuring Understanding of Documents under Distractor and Length Effects

Document question-answering systems increasingly answer questions over collections of retrieved documents rather than one clean source, so robustness to distracting context matters as much as reading ability. When such systems fail, it is often unclear whether the context was too long or the distractors were too close to the topic, because prior work tends to conflate these two effects. We present MUDDLE, a controlled benchmark that separates them. MUDDLE uses 270 human-annotated questions, each tied to a single source document, and instantiates every question in five conditions: the source alone, the source with two or four topically similar hard negatives, and the source with two or four random distractors. The random distractors are matched to the hard negatives in length and provenance, so an accuracy gap between the two arms reflects topical similarity rather than length. All five conditions are rendered in markdown, page images, and raw PDF, but the distractor sweep reported here is run in markdown, since a source plus its distractors exceeds current image and PDF input limits. We score answers with an LLM judge across three model families. In the complete markdown sweep, hard negatives lower accuracy more than length-matched random documents at both context sizes for gpt-5-mini, while random documents stay near the no-distractor baseline. The effect is small but directionally consistent, and for gpt-5-mini hard negatives significantly underperform length-matched random distractors when pooled across context sizes. We release the data and evaluation code for a reproducible study of context degradation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Detecting Hidden Chain-of-Thought in Large Language Models with Linguistic, Behavioral, and Mechanistic Indicators

Large language models often answer complex reasoning questions without revealing intermediate steps, raising whether they reason latently or complete patterns. We propose the Hidden CoT Detection Score (HCDS), a comparative behavioral and mechanistic signal measuring whether neutral-prompt behavior aligns more closely with explicit CoT or explicit no- CoT. Here, hidden CoT operationally denotes this neutral-prompt CoT-like alignment; HCDS does not directly observe or prove an unexposed reasoning trace. On GSM8K, HCDS is significantly positive for both Qwen3-4B variants (Thinking $+1.87$, $p = 1.2 \times 10^{-7}$; Instruct $+1.41$, $p = 1.9 \times 10^{-4}$), replicates across a different inference stack and quantization within $0.08$ ($+1.80$ and $+1.45$), and is not significantly positive in seven of eight length-adjusted calibration-control cells. The unadjusted score produces large positive scores on single-step arithmetic and numeric factual lookup. The variants also respond differently to no-CoT instructions: Instruct complies from the prompt alone, whereas Thinking continues reasoning and requires intervention. These findings show stronger, less prompt-conditional CoT-like behavior in the reasoning-tuned model, consistent with but not proof of latent reasoning. HCDS thus investigates latent reasoning without relying on models' self-reported traces.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Compositional Failure in Audio-Visual LLMs: Late-Layer Prior Dominance Under Cross-modal Conflict

We study audio-visual conflict as a compositional generalization test for AV-LLMs: the model must combine synchronized but semantically incompatible audio and video evidence and decide whether the pair matches. On VideoLLaMA 2-7B-AV, three alignment configurations remain nearchance on the scored exact-string Yes/No subset of AVHBench, even though their output priors shift substantially. Similarly, off-the-shelf InternVideo2 experienced a 32.3% accuracy decrease specifically under cross-modal conflict, accompanied by a 17.3% instruction-following failure. We call this failure mode prior dominance: late-layer commitment to an internally preferred answer pattern that is weakly grounded in the conflicting inputs. To explain this behavior, we conduct a mechanistic interpretability analysis and find that commitment remains concentrated at 25.5 $\pm$ 1 layers. We show that stronger temporal alignment changes answer bias, but do not improve compositional conflict resolution. Code and data to reproduce our mechanistic audit and behavioral evaluations are available at https://github.com/AdarshSudheer09/AVHBench-dmai.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

PAUSE: Editable Strategy Artifacts for Long-Form Cultural Story Adaptation

Generative AI systems increasingly mediate cultural adaptation, but their cultural decisions are often hidden inside prompts, transient model plans, or final prose. We study PAUSE (Pause-And-Update Strategy Editing), an intervention that exposes an editable adaptation strategy as a human control surface for cultural decisions in long-form story adaptation. The strategy is a structured artifact that can be inspected, edited, and then projected through downstream character, entity, and chapter-localization stages. In two Chinese-source serialized novels, we test whether human edits to this strategy propagate into chapter-level prose. Across 9 edited-vs-control chapter comparisons, judges select the edited-strategy output in all 9; a marker audit shows target markers in 8/9 edited outputs and 0/9 controls, with forbidden markers absent from edited outputs and present in all controls. We frame these results as a smoke-scale edit-adherence study, not a claim that the outputs are culturally authoritative or literary-quality improvements. PAUSE offers one practical way to make AI-mediated cultural adaptation more inspectable and contestable before decisions propagate through long-form generation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Looking Again: Measuring Sycophancy in the Reasoning Chains of Multimodal Models Under Pressure

Large multimodal reasoning models (LMRMs) are getting increasingly capable, primarily through generating explicit chain-of-thought reasoning before answering. In language models it has been observed that this performance often comes with sycophancy, the tendency of a model to agree with the user over the evidence. However, for LMRMs no reliable method to measure sycophancy yet exists. We bridge this gap by introducing a benchmark and dataset for evaluating LMRM sycophancy when confronted with a wrong answer from a user. Our benchmark pairs four visually grounded datasets spanning mathematical, clinical, temporal, and demographic reasoning with five pressure conditions in single-turn and multi-turn settings. We evaluate sycophancy in the final answer as well as its emergence within the reasoning chain. We find that sycophancy is prevalent under pressure, with Statement pressure eliciting the highest rates and Conviction the lowest for all models except Mistral-Small-4, and under multi-turn pressure reasoning-level sycophancy intensifies sharply in clinical visual judgement, reaching 95.7% for the most affected model. We further introduce a failure taxonomy separating reasoning-chain from answer-level sycophancy, and a complementary sentence-level taxonomy locating where in the chain drift first emerges. Our results show that sycophancy can corrupt the reasoning chain independently of the final answer, so answer-level evaluation alone is insufficient.

cs.CL↗