https://arxiv.org/api/81xKc3x0GWYiFklUeKhjEX/mQZo2026-06-21T16:16:23Z11257928515http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30036v2Teaching Values to Machines: Simulating Human-Like Behavior in LLMs2026-06-16T12:14:24ZLarge Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adopt different personas and roles; however, it remains unclear whether they can manifest behavior that adheres to a coherent, human-like value structure. In this work, we draw on established psychological value theory to induce human-like values in LLMs and assess their alignment with patterns observed in human studies. Using validated psychological questionnaires, we conduct large-scale experiments -- over 5 million questions -- to evaluate value structures and value-behavior relationships in leading LLMs and compare them to humans. Our findings reveal strong agreement between value-prompted LLMs and humans across both dimensions. Moreover, incorporating human value distributions enhances population-level simulations with value-induced LLMs. These findings highlight the potential of value-induced LLMs as effective, psychologically grounded tools for simulating human behavior.2026-05-28T14:56:21ZWe had some disagreement regarding proper attribution; we hope to resolve it soon and upload the paperAsaf YehudaiNaama RozenAriel Gerahttp://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05171v2Guidelines for the Annotation and Visualization of Legal Argumentation Structures in Chinese Judicial Decisions2026-06-16T12:07:11ZThis Guideline presents a systematic and operationalizable annotation framework for representing legal argumentation structures in judicial decisions. Grounded in theories of legal reasoning and argumentation, the framework aims to reveal the logical organization of judicial reasoning and provide a reliable foundation for computational analysis. At the element level, the Guideline distinguishes between the non-propositional layer and the propositional layer. The non-propositional layer consists of two elements: Issue and Non-argumentative Component. At the propositional level, the Guideline defines four proposition types: General Normative Judgment, Particular Normative Judgment, General Factual Judgment, and Particular Factual Judgment. At the relational level, five relation types are defined to represent argumentative structures: Support, Attack, Joint, Match, and Identity. These relations capture positive and negative argumentative connections, conjunctive reasoning structures, correspondences between legal norms and case facts, and identity or semantic equivalence between propositions. The Guideline further specifies formal representation rules and visualization conventions for both basic and nested structures, enabling consistent visualization of complex argumentation patterns. In addition, it establishes a standardized annotation workflow and consistency control mechanisms to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of annotated data. By providing a clear conceptual model, formal representation rules, and practical annotation procedures, this Guideline supports large-scale analysis of judicial reasoning and future research in legal argument mining, computational modeling of legal reasoning, and AI-assisted legal analysis.2026-03-05T13:39:54ZThis Guideline has been developed through revision and refinement based on the first edition. The element label system has been adjusted, and the annotation granularity and annotation workflow have been further optimizedKun ChenXianglei LiaoKaixue FeiYi XingXinrui Lihttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17838v1Environment-Grounded Automated Prompt Optimization for LLM Game Agents2026-06-16T12:06:27ZLLM agents in interactive environments are highly sensitive to their prompts, yet prompt engineering remains a manual, task-specific process. We introduce an automated prompt optimization framework for LLM agents that decomposes the observation-to-action pipeline into a goal-conditioned descriptor agent and an action selection agent, and iteratively refines each module's prompt through an LLM-driven evolutionary loop guided by environment returns. We propose a behavior analyzer to attribute episode outcomes to specific prompt components, and a mutator to propose targeted revisions to the prompt, before validating them through environment rollouts. We evaluate on all five BabyAI tasks in the BALROG benchmark, comparing our pipeline against BALROG's RobustCoTAgent under both plain and guided prompt initializations. Optimization improves performance consistently across tasks and conditions, without requiring updates to the model weights. On PutNext, a multi-step coordination task where the RobustCoTAgent achieves 0% success, our framework reaches up to 72.5% success rate using the same underlying LLM with optimized prompts. These results suggest that a multi-agent framework, combined with automatic prompt optimization, enhances LLMs without the need for fine-tuning or extensive human supervision.2026-06-16T12:06:27ZRean Clive FernandesLukas FehringTheresa EimerMarius LindauerMatthias Feurerhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2511.01650v3EngTrace: A Symbolic Benchmark for Verifiable Process Supervision of Engineering Reasoning2026-06-16T12:04:30ZLarge Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly entering specialized, safety-critical engineering workflows governed by strict quantitative standards and immutable physical laws, making rigorous evaluation of their reasoning capabilities imperative. However, existing benchmarks such as MMLU, MATH, and HumanEval assess isolated cognitive skills, failing to capture the physically grounded reasoning central to engineering, where scientific principles, quantitative modeling, and practical constraints must converge. To enable verifiable process supervision in engineering, we introduce EngTrace, a symbolic benchmark built on 90 parameterized templates, each generating unique, contamination-resistant problem instances, spanning three major engineering branches, nine core domains, and 20 distinct areas, yielding 1,350 test cases that stress-test generalization across diverse physical scenarios. Moving beyond outcome matching, we introduce a verifiable two-stage evaluation framework that uses a tiered protocol to validate intermediate reasoning traces alongside final answers through automated procedural checks and a heterogeneous AI Tribunal. Our evaluation of 27 leading LLMs reveals a distinct trade-off between numeric precision and trace fidelity, identifying a complexity cliff where abstract mathematical pre-training fails to translate into the integrative reasoning required for advanced engineering tasks.2025-11-03T15:05:44Z33 pages, includes figures and tables; introduces the EngTrace benchmarkAyesha GullMuhammad Usman SafderRania ElbadryFan ZhangVeselin StoyanovPreslav NakovZhuohan Xiehttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17835v1Perceptual compensation for tonal context in self-supervised speech models2026-06-16T12:03:46ZThis study examines the extent to which the wav2vec2.0 architecture exhibits evidence of compensation for phonological context. We conducted a pseudo-replication of a perceptional compensation experiment on Mandarin Chinese tones, and compared the embedding similarities and probing classifier outputs between a purely self-supervised pre-trained model and a model fine-tuned for Mandarin ASR. No evidence of compensation was found in the embedding similarities of the purely pre-trained model. Probing classifiers showed some evidence of compensation in addition to the expected layer-wise improvements in categorization, but failed to replicate human performance on isolated test syllables. Our findings contrast with previous reports of sensitivity to phonological structure emerging through pre-training alone, and suggest that supervised objectives may be necessary to encourage the abstraction of at least some types of phonological regularities.2026-06-16T12:03:46ZAccepted for publication at Interspeech 2026James KirbyIoana KrehanMichele Gubianhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17826v1When Multiple Scripts Matter: Evaluating ASR in Clinical Settings2026-06-16T11:53:21ZAutomatic speech recognition (ASR) in non-English clinical settings is challenged by multiscript variability, where the same term may appear in multiple valid orthographic forms. Conventional string-matching evaluation metrics often underestimate ASR performance by treating orthographic variants as errors. To address this issue, we introduce MultiClin, a clinical ASR benchmark designed to evaluate robustness to multiscript variability. Experiments across diverse ASR models show that multiscript-aware evaluation provides a fairer assessment of recognition quality than conventional single-reference evaluation. We further investigate the impact of script consistency during training and find that inconsistent script mappings increase orthographic uncertainty and hinder model convergence, with a balanced 50% mapping ratio producing the highest entropy. In contrast, script unification consistently yields the best ASR performance. Our dataset and code are publicly available at: https://github.com/aitrics-ronaldo/Interspeech_MultiClin.2026-06-16T11:53:21ZInterspeech 2026Jean SeoMinkyu KimJeonguk LeeJisoo JungWooseok HanEunho Yanghttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17820v1Improving low-resource ASR using bilingual fine-tuning with language identification: a cross-linguistic evaluation2026-06-16T11:48:36ZThis study explores how bilingual fine-tuning affects automatic speech recognition (ASR) in low-resource languages. We evaluate this method across nine linguistically and geographically diverse language pairs, covering a range of language families and writing systems. To distinguish the two languages, during training, we pre-pend each input text with a language identification token. At inference, the model jointly predicts both the language and transcription from the speech input alone. As texts for which the language is incorrectly determined show low ASR performance, we also conduct a follow-up experiment in which the language identification token is provided both during training and inference. Our results show that bilingual fine-tuning can be beneficial when language identification accuracy is high, and that in cases where language identification performance is low, including the language identification token at inference helps to improve ASR performance.2026-06-16T11:48:36ZReihaneh AmooieYun HaoWietse de VriesJelske DijkstraMatt ColerMartijn Wielinghttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17819v1A Framework for Evaluating Agentic Skills at Scale2026-06-16T11:46:56ZAgent skills -- structured, reusable knowledge artifacts that augment LLM agent capabilities -- have been rapidly adopted in industry, yet their cross-domain impact and use across commercial and open-source models remain under-studied, and no reusable methodology exists for evaluating an individual skill. In this work, we present an evaluation framework that lets a skill author construct realistic tasks to rigorously assess the aspects of a skill that matter most to them, and that estimates skill utility by solving those tasks. Further, we apply our evaluation approach at scale to 500 real-world skills, generating 1,000 tasks derived from the skills' content, along with instruction-following and goal-completion scoring rubrics. Using these metrics, we evaluate how 19 agent-model configurations, both proprietary and open-source, perform on the tasks. Our results show that models vary widely in how closely they adhere to the instructions encoded in skills, leading to substantial differences in their performance gains. Furthermore, we show that access to a skill significantly changes model behavior compared to the no-skill setup, providing an essential mechanism for encoding opinionated workflows into LLM agents. We release our evaluation dataset to support future work on agent skills.2026-06-16T11:46:56ZMaksim ShaposhnikovNicolas FortuinSimon StipcichMaria I. GorinovaAmy HeineikeRob Willoughbyhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17815v1Beyond Native Success: Auditing Deployment-Interface Exposure of CLIP Backdoors2026-06-16T11:41:53ZContrastive Language-Image Pre-training models are widely reused across downstream interfaces, including feature extraction, retrieval, reranking, and selection. Existing CLIP backdoor, however, usually validate attacks on a small attack-native task, leaving unclear whether the same poisoned checkpoint remains exposed, weakens, or becomes not applicable when reused through other interfaces. We introduce DIFE, a Deployment-Interface Footprint Evaluation framework that audits backdoored CLIP checkpoints across deployment interfaces. DIFE makes various evaluations comparable by specifying each interface's component readout, trigger channel, target event, reference condition, and metric. DIFE also introduces effective-footprint diagnosis to identify the reusable CLIP component or component combination that carries exposure and explains where risk transfers. Auditing reproduced CLIP backdoors with DIFE reveals a structured landscape: native success is not a checkpoint-level risk certificate, exposure follows component footprints, text-side poisoning does not yield textual-encoder control, and some coupled attacks remain mechanism-bound. This audit reveals a import gapin existing CLIP backdoors: a textual encoder that itself becomes a reusable carrier of adversarial behavior. We therefore introduce BadTextTower to fill this gap. BadTextTower produces strong text-conditioned retrieval, reranking, and selection exposure while leaving visual-only reuse nearly clean.2026-06-16T11:41:53ZKunlan XiangHaomiao YangWenbo Jianghttp://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17356v2PACE-RAG: Patient-Aware Contextual and Evidence-Constrained RAG for Clinical Drug Recommendation2026-06-16T11:36:31ZDrug recommendation requires a deep understanding of individual patient context, especially for complex conditions like Parkinson's disease. While LLMs possess broad medical knowledge, they fail to capture the subtle nuances of actual prescribing patterns. Existing RAG methods also struggle with these complexities because guideline-based retrieval remains too generic and similar-patient retrieval often replicates majority patterns without accounting for the unique clinical nuances of individual patients. To bridge this gap, we propose PACE-RAG (Patient-Aware Contextual and Evidence-Constrained RAG). Rather than directly copying frequent medications from retrieved patients, PACE-RAG personalizes recommendations by first extracting patient-specific clinical features, retrieving cases around these features, and then refining the final prescription using the patient's current symptoms, active medication history, and focus-specific prescribing tendencies. By analyzing treatment patterns tailored to specific clinical features, PACE-RAG generates patient-specific medication recommendations along with an explainable clinical summary. Evaluated on a Parkinson's cohort and the MIMIC-IV benchmark using Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen3-8B, PACE-RAG achieved state-of-the-art performance, reaching F1 scores of 80.84% and 47.22%, respectively. These results suggest that PACE-RAG is a robust and clinically grounded framework for personalized decision support. Our code is available at: https://github.com/ChaeYoungHuh/PACE-RAG.2026-03-18T04:40:53Z32 pages, 18 figuresChaeyoung HuhHyunmin HwangJung Hwan ShinSungyang JoJinse ParkJong Chul Yehttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17799v1Position: Coding Benchmarks Are Misaligned with Agentic Software Engineering2026-06-16T11:21:01ZCoding agents have become a major mode of software engineering, but the benchmarks we use to compare them were designed in a pre-agent era: they collapse model, harness, and environment into a single end-to-end score, typically computed against one reference solution, with no component-level signal for iteration. We argue that current coding benchmarks are misaligned with agentic software engineering. A coding agent in practice is not a model: it is a system harness -- a composite of models, harnesses, contexts, environments, and feedback signals, any one of which can move the benchmark score by margins comparable to those between adjacent model generations. We discuss three symptoms: (i) benchmark scores conflate the model with the rest of the harness; (ii) grading against a single reference solution penalises equally valid alternatives; and (iii) the absence of signal at the level of individual harness components makes the end-to-end system score difficult to iterate on.2026-06-16T11:21:01ZMaria I. GorinovaMacey BakerAmy HeineikeMaksim ShaposhnikovRob WilloughbyDru Knoxhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10703v2From Observation to Intervention: A Causal Audit of Expert Importance in Mixture-of-Experts Models2026-06-16T11:15:27ZInterpretability methods routinely use population-level summary statistics over observed model behaviour to license claims about the effects of targeted interventions on specific computations; in Pearl's terms, they treat rung-1 associational evidence as if it supported rung-2 interventional conclusions, a move whose validity is rarely tested. We examine one concrete instance: the use of routing statistics in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) pruning, where utilization rates, activation norms, and routing weight distributions are treated as predictors of which experts can be removed without functional cost. A token-level interventional audit across three high-redundancy MoE architectures (OLMoE-1B-7B-0924, Qwen1.5-MoE-A2.7B, DeepSeek-V2-Lite) finds no observational metric predicts causal expert importance in any model: across all 60 metric-layer combinations effect sizes stay below Cohen's $d = 0.23$, and no metric is reliably positive under our corrected, dual-test criterion. A per-token routing weight control, run with identical $n$, rules out insufficient power, recovering a signal whose CI excludes zero at OLMoE's final MoE layer ($d = +0.231$, 95\% CI $[+0.09, +0.37]$, $p = 0.0013$). Existing pruning methods succeed in this regime not by identifying dispensable experts but because early-layer redundancy renders most selection criteria interchangeable. Our results provide an explicit counterexample to the common inferential step from population-level observational summaries to token-level interventional claims about expert importance, and illustrate how interventional audits can calibrate the evidential standards for interpretability claims.2026-06-09T11:04:19Z9 pages, 2 figures, 9 tables. Accepted at the ICML 2026 Workshop on Philosophy of Science Meets Machine Learning (PhilML). Camera-ready Version. Non-archivalLeonard EngmannChristian Medeiros AdrianoHolger Giesehttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17791v1The Slop Paradox: How Synthetic Standardization Erodes Clinical Uncertainty and Cross-Modal Alignment in AI-Rewritten Radiology Reports2026-06-16T11:07:48ZAI-assisted clinical documentation tools increasingly summarize, standardize, and reformat radiology reports using large language models (LLMs). We present a controlled measurement of the resulting information degradation. Using 450 chest X-ray reports from the Indiana University dataset, we generate synthetic versions via three realistic LLM rewriting tasks: EHR summarization, standardized rewriting, and teaching case preparation. We measure entity erosion (via medical NER), hedging collapse (loss of clinical uncertainty language), and cross-modal alignment degradation (via BiomedCLIP image-text similarity). Our central finding is a dissociation between information loss and cross-modal fidelity. EHR summarization is the most destructive at the content level, eroding 51.4% of clinical entities and 43.7% of hedging language, yet it preserves image-text alignment almost entirely (a 2.5% drop). The two tasks meant to produce cleaner training data, standardized rewriting and teaching case preparation, do the reverse: they preserve more entities (26.8% and 29.3% eroded) but cause 14.9-16.5% alignment drops, six to seven times those of EHR summarization. We term this the slop paradox: rewriting that makes clinical text look cleaner for multimodal training is precisely what pulls it away from the image. Contrary to our pre-specified hypothesis, rare pathologies were not preferentially degraded: across nine rare-versus-common comparisons, no difference survived multiple-comparison correction, and nominal differences ran in the opposite direction (common > rare), so contamination is invisible to condition-specific monitoring. The dominant determinant of degradation is the type of AI rewriting task, not the clinical content. These findings bear on multimodal medical AI dataset construction and the governance of AI-assisted clinical documentation.2026-06-16T11:07:48ZSamar Ansarihttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17786v1Toward Accessible Psychotherapy Training Using AI-Driven Interactive Patient Avatars2026-06-16T11:02:00ZTraining psychotherapists in evidence-based interventions such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) requires repeated practice with meaningful feedback, yet opportunities for safe, standardized training are limited by ethical, logistical, and resource constraints. We introduce a system designed to support ACT-oriented psychotherapy training through spoken dialogue with an embodied virtual patient. The system uses large language models to simulate patient behavior conditioned on profiles derived from real therapy sessions and configurable clinical scenarios, while a separate automated evaluator provides turn-by-turn feedback on therapist responses based on established ACT fidelity criteria. Rather than aiming to replace supervision, the system is intended to support deliberate practice by enabling experimentation, reflection, and immediate feedback in low-risk settings. Expert evaluation with practicing psychologists confirmed high realism in patient behavior and demonstrated that immediate turn-by-turn ACT feedback increased therapists' awareness of intervention choices and enabled effective experimentation with alternative responses. Quantitative evaluation across 49 therapy transcripts identified GPT-4o-mini as the optimal feedback model, achieving the lowest mean absolute error (MAE = 6.12) in replicating human supervisor ACT fidelity ratings with statistically significant agreement. This work demonstrates the potential of fidelity-aware simulated patients as a scalable complement to psychotherapy training.2026-06-16T11:02:00Z2026 IEEE 14th International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), Minneapolis, MN, June 1-3, 2026, pp. 990-995Pascal RiachiSofie KamberStella BrognaAndrew GlosterRafael Wampfler10.1109/ICHI69079.2026.00124http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.21135v2Smarter edits? Post-editing with error highlights and translation suggestions2026-06-16T10:56:03ZAs MT quality increases, interest in enhanced post-editing features such as QE-derived error highlights is growing, yet evidence for their usefulness remains limited. In this work, we explore the usefulness of LLM-derived error highlights and correction suggestions based on automatic post-editing (APE). We conduct a study where professional translators (En-Nl) post-edit translations using APE error highlights and correction suggestions and compare productivity, quality and user experience to regular PE and PE with QE-derived highlights. While no condition yielded productivity or quality gains compared to regular PE, APE highlights were better received than QE-derived highlights, and correction suggestions improved overall user experience.2026-05-20T13:09:51ZAccepted at EAMT 2026Fleur V. J. van TellingenGautam RankaDora ŽugčićJoyce van der WalAndrea CamastaLivio GuerraAlina Karakanta