As chatbots become increasingly widespread, personalization has emerged as a key feature for accommodating diverse users and use cases. Personalization enables better responses rather than generic answers, but when using demographic attributes to drive recommendations, can also amplify harmful stereotypes. For instance, individuals from different cultural backgrounds may meaningfully want culturally distinct food preferences and values incorporated, but not different job recommendations. Yet, little is known about how these user preferences relate to actual platform behavior. Through a survey of user preferences and a novel field study methodology where users input our standardized questions to their own personalized chatbot interfaces then share the outputs back to us, we contribute real-world personalization insights on the gaps between what users want versus actually receive. We generally find that there is minimal race- and gender-based personalization in practice, which conflicts with users’ desires in some domains, e.g., cuisines. We conceptualize our findings through the framing of a personalization double bind: Black people and women desire more demographic-based personalization than White people and men in order to avoid overly generic responses (indirect discrimination), yet simultaneously express greater concern about stereotypical responses (direct discrimination).

Solving problems through repeated attempts is a sequential modeling task: at each step, the solver receives feedback and decides how to revise their solutions. Predicting whether performance improves, plateaus, or regresses across attempts is central to understanding any iterative problem-solving process in both human learners and autonomous agents. Beyond outcomes, modeling what errors persist and how strategies shift across attempts provides deeper insight into the mechanics of sequential learning. Studying these dynamics requires observing many solvers as they attempt, receive feedback, and revise. Programming courses with automated grading provide this setting, as students iteratively submit code to test suites and receive feedback on every attempt. We therefore curate CodeInsight, a large-scale dataset of over 3 million submissions from 3,286 undergraduates across 2 introductory C++ courses in 2 academic years, with test-case-level outcomes, timestamps, and source code. On this dataset, we build a benchmark that evaluates models spanning parametric, sequential, and generative traditions under a shared calibration-and-scoring protocol, including a Recurrent State Space Model (RSSM) adapted to track solver characteristics through discrete latent variables and an LLM-based predictor that generates explicit solutions. The adapted RSSM achieves the strongest predictive accuracy on three of the four courses. The LLM predictor is less accurate but produces full submissions at each attempt, enabling direct analysis of failure modes. We find that the model’s coding proficiency is inversely related to predictive performance in this setting, with the LLM better understood as a generative solver conditioned on context rather than a faithful predictor of solver behavior. We publicly release our code and the dataset on request to facilitate future research.

Large language models (LLMs) often generate plausible yet incorrect answers, posing risks in safety-critical settings such as medicine. Human evaluation is expensive, and LLM-as-judge approaches risk introducing hidden errors. Recent single-pass white-box methods detect contextual hallucinations using linear probes over model internals, but their generalization to out-of-domain, out-of-task, and training-free settings remains poorly understood. We introduce HeadEntropy, a method that predicts answer correctness by measuring how susceptible each attention head’s pattern is to modification under further gradient updates. The key insight is that the trace of the softmax Jacobian is a monotonic function of 2-Rényi entropy, linking attention spread to gradient stability during training, even without the reference annotation. With no training, HeadEntropy reaches 0.736 AUROC, outperforms every training-free baseline in paired comparison across 5 models and 5 datasets, and matches a hidden-state probe transferred across domains, at under 1% of inference cost. We evaluate broadly across 5 instruction-tuned LLMs and 5 datasets spanning general knowledge, multi-hop reasoning, mathematical reasoning, claim verification, and medicine. The code is available at https://github.com/StanfordMIMI/HeadEntropy.

Benchmark scores are a central currency in model releases: they inform purchasing decisions, shape public trust, and influence policy. Yet, a key assumption underlying benchmark scores is that the model performance measured through APIs faithfully reflects the behavior of deployed systems.

We challenge this assumption by auditing ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini across seven systems and nine benchmarks spanning general capability, social bias, and sycophancy. We find systematic API–interface differences in both accuracy and consistency. On average, API evaluations score 3.4 percentage points higher in accuracy and 2.1 percentage points higher in test–retest agreement than corresponding interface evaluations. For ChatGPT, the performance difference between API and interface access rivals the API-only difference between GPT 5.3 and GPT 5.4. Put differently, switching access surfaces can degrade performance as much as downgrading a full model generation.

We further test whether exposed API controls can reproduce interface behavior by varying system prompts, sampling parameters, and reasoning settings. These controls shift behavior in some cases but do not reliably eliminate the gap. Our findings document a context-validity gap: measurements obtained through APIs do not necessarily generalize to corresponding deployed interfaces, complicating the use of API evaluations as proxies for deployed systems.

Advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled significant capabilities in audio processing, resulting in state-of-the-art models now known as Large Audio Language Models (LALMs). However, minimal work has been done to measure audio understanding beyond automatic speech recognition (ASR). This paper closes that gap by proposing a benchmark suite, SCENEBench (Spatial, Cross-lingual, Environmental, Non-speech Evaluation), that targets a broad form of audio comprehension across four real-world categories: background sound understanding, noise localization, cross-linguistic speech understanding, and vocal characterizer recognition. In addition to performance, we also measure model latency. The purpose of this benchmark suite is to assess the audio beyond just what words are said— rather, in how they are said and the non-speech components of the audio. To strengthen ecological validity, we include a small human-recorded evaluation split per category. Based on the needs articulated by audio understanding use-cases of accessibility technology and industrial noise monitoring, this benchmark reveals critical gaps in current LALMs. The performance in each task is quite varied, with some tasks having performance far below random chance and others with high accuracy. We also provide a structured error taxonomy to characterize standard failure modes across tasks. These results provide direction for targeted improvements in model capabilities.

According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health, more than 3.4 million children experience speech disorders that require clinical intervention. The number of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) is roughly 20 times fewer than the number of affected children, highlighting a significant gap in children’s care and a pressing need for technological support that improves the productivity of SLPs. State-of-the-art multimodal language models (MLMs) show promise for supporting SLPs, but their use remains underexplored largely due to a limited understanding of their performance in high-stakes clinical settings. To address this gap, we collaborate with domain experts to develop a taxonomy of real-world use cases of MLMs in speech-language pathologies. Building on this taxonomy, we introduce the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating MLM across five core use cases, each containing 1,000 manually annotated data points. This benchmark includes robustness and sensitivity tests under various settings, including background noise, speaker gender, and accent. Our evaluation of 15 state-of-the-art MLMs reveals that no single model consistently outperforms others across all tasks. Notably, we find systematic disparities, with models performing better on male speakers, and observe that chain-of-thought prompting can degrade performance on classification tasks with large label spaces and narrow decision boundaries. Furthermore, we study fine-tuning MLMs on domain-specific data, achieving improvements of over 30% compared to base models. These findings highlight both the potential and limitations of current MLMs for speech-language pathology applications, underscoring the need for further research and targeted development.

We introduce SATBench, a benchmark for evaluating the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through logical puzzles derived from Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems.Unlike prior work that focuses on inference rule-based reasoning, which often involves deducing conclusions from a set of premises, our approach leverages the search-based nature of SAT problems, where the objective is to find a solution that fulfills a specified set of logical constraints. Each instance in SATBench is generated from a SAT formula, then translated into a puzzle using LLMs. The generation process is fully automated and allows for adjustable difficulty by varying the number of clauses. All 2100 puzzles are validated through both LLM-based and solver-based consistency checks, with human validation on a subset. Experimental results show that even the strongest model, o4-mini, achieves only 65.0% accuracy on hard UNSAT problems, close to the random baseline of 50%. Our error analysis reveals systematic failures such as satisfiability bias, context inconsistency, and condition omission, highlighting limitations of current LLMs in search-based logical reasoning. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Anjiang-Wei/SATBench

Algorithmic fairness has conventionally adopted the mathematically convenient perspective of racial color-blindness (i.e., difference unaware treatment). However, we contend that in a range of important settings, group difference awareness matters. For example, differentiating between groups may be necessary in legal contexts (e.g., the U.S. compulsory draft applies to men but not women) and harm assessments (e.g., referring to girls as “terrorists” may be less harmful than referring to Muslim people as such). Thus, in contrast to most fairness work, we study fairness through the perspective of treating people differently — when it is contextually appropriate to. We first introduce an important distinction between descriptive (fact-based), normative (value-based), and correlation (association-based) benchmarks. This distinction is significant because each category requires separate interpretation and mitigation tailored to its specific characteristics. Then, we present a benchmark suite composed of eight different scenarios for a total of 16k questions that enables us to assess difference awareness. Finally, we show results across ten models that demonstrate difference awareness is a distinct dimension to fairness where existing bias mitigation strategies may backfire.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have underscored their importance in the evolution of artificial intelligence. However, despite extensive pretraining on multilingual datasets, available open-sourced LLMs exhibit limited effectiveness in processing Vietnamese. The challenge is exacerbated by the absence of systematic benchmark datasets and metrics tailored for Vietnamese LLM evaluation. To mitigate these issues, we have finetuned LLMs specifically for Vietnamese and developed a comprehensive evaluation framework encompassing 10 tasks and 31 metrics. We observe that finetuning can help LLMs transfer knowledge across languages, serving as an efficient way to bolster their capabilities in non-English languages. Moreover, our analysis indicates that larger models can introduce more biases and uncalibrated outputs and the key factor influencing LLM performance is the quality of the training or finetuning datasets. These insights underscore the significance of meticulous finetuning with high-quality datasets in enhancing LLM performance.