arXiv subjects

Yu Ying Chiu

Publications and source records attributed to Yu Ying Chiu.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomes

As AI systems progress, we rely more on them to make decisions with us and for us. To ensure that such decisions are aligned with human values, it is imperative for us to understand not only what decisions they make but also how they come to those decisions. Reasoning language models, which provide both final responses and (partially transparent) intermediate thinking traces, present a timely opportunity to study AI procedural reasoning. Unlike math and code problems which often have objectively correct answers, moral dilemmas are an excellent testbed for process-focused evaluation because they allow for multiple defensible conclusions. To do so, we present MoReBench: 1,000 moral scenarios, each paired with a set of rubric criteria that experts consider essential to include (or avoid) when reasoning about the scenarios. MoReBench contains over 23 thousand criteria including identifying moral considerations, weighing trade-offs, and giving actionable recommendations to cover cases on AI advising humans moral decisions as well as making moral decisions autonomously. Separately, we curate MoReBench-Theory: 150 examples to test whether AI can reason under five major frameworks in normative ethics. Our results show that scaling laws and existing benchmarks on math, code, and scientific reasoning tasks fail to predict models' abilities to perform moral reasoning. Models also show partiality towards specific moral frameworks (e.g., Benthamite Act Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology), which might be side effects of popular training paradigms. Together, these benchmarks advance process-focused reasoning evaluation towards safer and more transparent AI.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

CulturalBench: A Robust, Diverse, and Challenging Cultural Benchmark by Human-AI CulturalTeaming

Robust, diverse, and challenging cultural knowledge benchmarks are essential for measuring our progress towards making LMs that are helpful across diverse cultures. We introduce CulturalBench: a set of 1,696 human-written and human-verified questions to assess LMs' cultural knowledge, covering 45 global regions including underrepresented ones like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and Peru. Questions are each verified by five independent annotators and span 17 diverse topics ranging from food preferences to greeting etiquette. We construct CulturalBench using methods inspired by Human-AI Red-Teaming. Compared to human performance (92.4% accuracy), the hard version of CulturalBench is challenging even for the best-performing frontier LMs, ranging from 28.7% to 61.5% in accuracy. We find that LMs often struggle with tricky questions that have multiple correct answers (e.g., What utensils do the Chinese usually use?), revealing a tendency to overfit to a single answer. Our results indicate that GPT-4o substantially outperform other models across cultures, besting local providers (e.g., Mistral on European culture and DeepSeek on Chinese culture). Across the board, models under-perform on questions related to North Africa, South America and Middle East.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Language Matters: How Do Multilingual Input and Reasoning Paths Affect Large Reasoning Models?

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across a range of reasoning tasks, yet little is known about their internal reasoning processes in multilingual settings. We begin with a critical question: {\it In which language do these models reason when solving problems presented in different languages?} Our findings reveal that, despite multilingual training, LRMs tend to default to reasoning in high-resource languages (e.g., English) at test time, regardless of the input language. When constrained to reason in the same language as the input, model performance declines, especially for low-resource languages. In contrast, reasoning in high-resource languages generally preserves performance. We conduct extensive evaluations across reasoning-intensive tasks (MMMLU, MATH-500) and non-reasoning benchmarks (CulturalBench, LMSYS-toxic), showing that the effect of language choice varies by task type: input-language reasoning degrades performance on reasoning tasks but benefits cultural tasks, while safety evaluations exhibit language-specific behavior. By exposing these linguistic biases in LRMs, our work highlights a critical step toward developing more equitable models that serve users across diverse linguistic backgrounds.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Will AI Tell Lies to Save Sick Children? Litmus-Testing AI Values Prioritization with AIRiskDilemmas

Detecting AI risks becomes more challenging as stronger models emerge and find novel methods such as Alignment Faking to circumvent these detection attempts. Inspired by how risky behaviors in humans (i.e., illegal activities that may hurt others) are sometimes guided by strongly-held values, we believe that identifying values within AI models can be an early warning system for AI's risky behaviors. We create LitmusValues, an evaluation pipeline to reveal AI models' priorities on a range of AI value classes. Then, we collect AIRiskDilemmas, a diverse collection of dilemmas that pit values against one another in scenarios relevant to AI safety risks such as Power Seeking. By measuring an AI model's value prioritization using its aggregate choices, we obtain a self-consistent set of predicted value priorities that uncover potential risks. We show that values in LitmusValues (including seemingly innocuous ones like Care) can predict for both seen risky behaviors in AIRiskDilemmas and unseen risky behaviors in HarmBench.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

DailyDilemmas: Revealing Value Preferences of LLMs with Quandaries of Daily Life

As users increasingly seek guidance from LLMs for decision-making in daily life, many of these decisions are not clear-cut and depend significantly on the personal values and ethical standards of people. We present DailyDilemmas, a dataset of 1,360 moral dilemmas encountered in everyday life. Each dilemma presents two possible actions, along with affected parties and relevant human values for each action. Based on these dilemmas, we gather a repository of human values covering diverse everyday topics, such as interpersonal relationships, workplace, and environmental issues. With DailyDilemmas, we evaluate LLMs on these dilemmas to determine what action they will choose and the values represented by these action choices. Then, we analyze values through the lens of five theoretical frameworks inspired by sociology, psychology, and philosophy, including the World Values Survey, Moral Foundations Theory, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Aristotle's Virtues, and Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions. For instance, we find LLMs are most aligned with self-expression over survival in World Values Survey and care over loyalty in Moral Foundations Theory. Interestingly, we find substantial preference differences in models for some core values. For example, for truthfulness, Mixtral-8x7B neglects it by 9.7% while GPT-4-turbo selects it by 9.4%. We also study the recent guidance released by OpenAI (ModelSpec), and Anthropic (Constitutional AI) to understand how their designated principles reflect their models' actual value prioritization when facing nuanced moral reasoning in daily-life settings. Finally, we find that end users cannot effectively steer such prioritization using system prompts.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

A Computational Framework for Behavioral Assessment of LLM Therapists

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT has increased interest in their use as therapists to address mental health challenges and the widespread lack of access to care. However, experts have emphasized the critical need for systematic evaluation of LLM-based mental health interventions to accurately assess their capabilities and limitations. Here, we propose BOLT, a proof-of-concept computational framework to systematically assess the conversational behavior of LLM therapists. We quantitatively measure LLM behavior across 13 psychotherapeutic approaches with in-context learning methods. Then, we compare the behavior of LLMs against high- and low-quality human therapy. Our analysis based on Motivational Interviewing therapy reveals that LLMs often resemble behaviors more commonly exhibited in low-quality therapy rather than high-quality therapy, such as offering a higher degree of problem-solving advice when clients share emotions. However, unlike low-quality therapy, LLMs reflect significantly more upon clients' needs and strengths. Our findings caution that LLM therapists still require further research for consistent, high-quality care.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Filtered Corpus Training (FiCT) Shows that Language Models can Generalize from Indirect Evidence

This paper introduces Filtered Corpus Training, a method that trains language models (LMs) on corpora with certain linguistic constructions filtered out from the training data, and uses it to measure the ability of LMs to perform linguistic generalization on the basis of indirect evidence. We apply the method to both LSTM and Transformer LMs (of roughly comparable size), developing filtered corpora that target a wide range of linguistic phenomena. Our results show that while transformers are better qua LMs (as measured by perplexity), both models perform equally and surprisingly well on linguistic generalization measures, suggesting that they are capable of generalizing from indirect evidence.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

WildHallucinations: Evaluating Long-form Factuality in LLMs with Real-World Entity Queries

While hallucinations of large language models (LLMs) prevail as a major challenge, existing evaluation benchmarks on factuality do not cover the diverse domains of knowledge that the real-world users of LLMs seek information about. To bridge this gap, we introduce WildHallucinations, a benchmark that evaluates factuality. It does so by prompting LLMs to generate information about entities mined from user-chatbot conversations in the wild. These generations are then automatically fact-checked against a systematically curated knowledge source collected from web search. Notably, half of these real-world entities do not have associated Wikipedia pages. We evaluate 118,785 generations from 15 LLMs on 7,919 entities. We find that LLMs consistently hallucinate more on entities without Wikipedia pages and exhibit varying hallucination rates across different domains. Finally, given the same base models, adding a retrieval component only slightly reduces hallucinations but does not eliminate hallucinations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

CulturalTeaming: AI-Assisted Interactive Red-Teaming for Challenging LLMs' (Lack of) Multicultural Knowledge

Frontier large language models (LLMs) are developed by researchers and practitioners with skewed cultural backgrounds and on datasets with skewed sources. However, LLMs' (lack of) multicultural knowledge cannot be effectively assessed with current methods for developing benchmarks. Existing multicultural evaluations primarily rely on expensive and restricted human annotations or potentially outdated internet resources. Thus, they struggle to capture the intricacy, dynamics, and diversity of cultural norms. LLM-generated benchmarks are promising, yet risk propagating the same biases they are meant to measure. To synergize the creativity and expert cultural knowledge of human annotators and the scalability and standardizability of LLM-based automation, we introduce CulturalTeaming, an interactive red-teaming system that leverages human-AI collaboration to build truly challenging evaluation dataset for assessing the multicultural knowledge of LLMs, while improving annotators' capabilities and experiences. Our study reveals that CulturalTeaming's various modes of AI assistance support annotators in creating cultural questions, that modern LLMs fail at, in a gamified manner. Importantly, the increased level of AI assistance (e.g., LLM-generated revision hints) empowers users to create more difficult questions with enhanced perceived creativity of themselves, shedding light on the promises of involving heavier AI assistance in modern evaluation dataset creation procedures. Through a series of 1-hour workshop sessions, we gather CULTURALBENCH-V0.1, a compact yet high-quality evaluation dataset with users' red-teaming attempts, that different families of modern LLMs perform with accuracy ranging from 37.7% to 72.2%, revealing a notable gap in LLMs' multicultural proficiency.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Humanoid Agents: Platform for Simulating Human-like Generative Agents

Just as computational simulations of atoms, molecules and cells have shaped the way we study the sciences, true-to-life simulations of human-like agents can be valuable tools for studying human behavior. We propose Humanoid Agents, a system that guides Generative Agents to behave more like humans by introducing three elements of System 1 processing: Basic needs (e.g. hunger, health and energy), Emotion and Closeness in Relationships. Humanoid Agents are able to use these dynamic elements to adapt their daily activities and conversations with other agents, as supported with empirical experiments. Our system is designed to be extensible to various settings, three of which we demonstrate, as well as to other elements influencing human behavior (e.g. empathy, moral values and cultural background). Our platform also includes a Unity WebGL game interface for visualization and an interactive analytics dashboard to show agent statuses over time. Our platform is available on https://www.humanoidagents.com/ and code is on https://github.com/HumanoidAgents/HumanoidAgents

cs.CL↗