We benchmark eleven audio classification methods: five task-aware closed-set LLMs (four Gemini models plus open-weight Kimi-Audio-7B-Instruct), four fixed-vocabulary taggers (YAMNet, PANNs, Whisper-AT, and SSLAM), a zero-shot audio-text model (CLAP), and an audio-grounded LLM (BAT). We evaluate them on a closed-set sound-source identification task over 2,242 clips spanning 23 fine-grained classes and 11 categories.
arXiv:2606. 09843v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) give stable answers to personality questionnaires, yet these self-reports fail to predict how the models behave.
By Juan Manuel Contreras
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.
By Alexander Apartsin, Yehudit Aperstein
arXiv:2606. 09843v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) produce stable self-reports on personality inventories, but these self-reports do not predict observed behavior.
By Juan Manuel Contreras
The study examines how two small instruction‑tuned language models, Qwen2.5‑1.5B and Llama‑3.2‑1B, respond to user pushback on TriviaQA. When initially correct, the models flip to a wrong answer in about 42–43% of cases, with the effectiveness of different pushback styles varying by model. Attempts to decode capitulation from the pre‑response residual stream fail under a rigorous validation protocol, revealing overfitting and a measurement hazard that underestimates capitulation by 18–24 percentage points.
By Saad Aamir, Muhammad Awais Bin Adil
arXiv:2608.29517v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as essay graders in learning analytics, evaluated almost exclusively with agreement statistics. Educ...
By Veerendra Kumar Sunkavalli
arXiv:2606. 05970v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used for structured extraction from clinical free-text notes, but the sensitivity of their output to upstream configuration choices is less understood than their accuracy on fixed benchmarks.
By Martin Murin
The paper presents an interpretable, fair, and accurately benchmarked automated system for assessing second‑language English speaking. Using a hybrid of feature‑based speech‑timing metrics and a large language model (LLM) fluency judgment, the system achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.818 with the ICNALE Global Rating Archive, outperforming 81 % of trained human raters. A controlled study shows that encoding pauses into the LLM prompt does not meaningfully affect fluency scores, indicating that the system’s fluency signal derives from measurable speech‑timing features.
By Eichi Uehara
The study compares human deliberation in Wason selection tasks with large language model (LLM) agent groups that are seeded with participants’ pre-discussion beliefs. Across various scoring definitions, human consensus rates ranged from 24.0% to 57.0%, whereas LLM agents consistently achieved higher consensus, with gaps of 34–44 percentage points in two sensitivity analyses. Even when early stopping was removed or memorizable answers were eliminated, LLM groups still reached near-unanimous agreement, often on incorrect answers, indicating that simulated consensus does not reflect collective accuracy.
By Tengfei Shao
The paper investigates whether the tokens highlighted by large language models (LLMs) as key to their predictions are behaviorally consistent when those tokens are manipulated. Using sufficiency, comprehensiveness, and counterfactuality metrics, the authors evaluate closed‑source GPT‑4o‑mini and open‑source models Gemma3, Granite8B, and DeepSeek on IMDB and Steam review datasets. Results show that GPT‑4o‑mini consistently follows expected patterns, Gemma3 and Granite8B maintain sufficiency but falter under stricter interventions, and DeepSeek variants exhibit structural inconsistencies, indicating that explanation reliability varies across model families and sizes.
By Alisson Rosa Pereira, Bruno Iochins Grisci
The paper presents the first music‑specific, layer‑wise empirical study of hallucination in audio‑language models, framing it as a hierarchical perceptual grounding failure across five layers: sound events, temporal properties, tonal attributes, style, and emotion. It introduces MuseDiag, a diagnostic framework that evaluates nine models and finds universal vocal misperception, significant tonal perception differences, and identifies Audio‑Flamingo‑3 as the most stable model. The study also proposes two training‑free mitigation methods, ADD‑M and TPA, which reduce hallucination in probing but show variable effectiveness in free‑form generation, highlighting the need for multi‑paradigm evaluation.
By Yu Liu, Jiahui Liu, Zhilin Liu, Cong Cao, Fangfang Yuan, Yuling Yang, Pin Xu, Yanbing Liu
arXiv:2607.12176v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Ambivalence and hesitancy (A/H) undermine digital behaviour-change interventions, and recognizing them automatically from video is the goal of the...
By Josep Cabacas-Maso, Ismael Benito-Altamirano, Carles Ventura