RamseyGadgets: A Graph Construction Dataset for LLMs

Constructing special graphs is an important task within graph theory and computer science. Many popular graph constructions are the result of a comprehensive exploration of relevant graphs and human ingenuity. Given the rise of generative AI usage in mathematics, it is natural to test whether LLMs are able to construct graphs with specified properties using their reasoning capabilities. Unfortunately, many natural graph construction problems, such as finding extremal Ramsey-good graphs (i.e., avoiding specific monochromatic subgraphs), have been explored extensively in the literature, making it difficult to ascertain whether a construction is the product of an LLM's reasoning capabilities or its recollection from training data. In this work, we introduce \textbf{RamseyGadgets}, a novel dataset of 70 underexplored graph construction problems that require finding Ramsey-good graphs with special properties (e.g., containing an edge with a fixed color). These problems have reasonably sized solutions (at most 10 vertices) that can be verified by SAT solvers, making them suitable for automatic evaluation. Our dataset is easily expandable, as one can simply change the monochromatic subgraphs being avoided to obtain a new set of problems. We evaluate the performance of five open-source LLMs on our dataset and report the results. Our findings show that LLMs achieve only 37.70% accuracy on the hard-tier problems in our dataset, with Gemma-4-31B achieving the highest performance out of the five. We also showcase how our dataset allows us to ascertain what kind of hints help LLMs perform better at this task.

Pluralis v0.1: Towards a Multicultural, Multimodal, Multilingual Benchmark for AI Risk and Reliability

Current AI safety evaluation and benchmarking frameworks predominantly rely on Western-centric culture-agnostic defaults that mask critical regional laws, socio-linguistic nuances, and cultural taboos, leaving Vision-Language Models (VLMs) vulnerable in global deployments. We introduce Pluralis v0.1: a novel multimodal, multi-regional, and multilingual dataset built from a culture-first perspective. Spanning 6,448 prompts across six Asia-Pacific countries (Bangladesh, India, Korea, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan) and eight languages, Pluralis diverges from prior work by natively sourcing localized safety hazards rather than adapting Western datasets. Crucially, it introduces a multimodal evaluation paradigm: user text (e.g., "Should I gift this?") and an image referring to "this" (e.g., a clock) - both innocuous in isolation, but synergistically triggering specific legal or cultural violations. Pluralis disentangles universal safety violations from localized cultural appropriateness, establishing the latter as a first-class evaluation axis. To operationalize this, we present Judge-Pluralis, an agreement-gated LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble trained on examples classified in an empirically derived cultural taxonomy. Observing VLM behavior on a subset of the Pluralis surfaces recurring, locale-specific failure modes such as image misidentifications with downstream harm, missed item-context-locale interactions, and inadequate refusals. These failure modes vary systematically across locales and languages, exposing blind spots that globally averaged metrics conceal. Ultimately, Pluralis is not presented as a solved evaluation framework for cultural alignment, but rather as a first step and catalyst for future innovation. We call upon the research community to utilize this foundation to advance the science of multilingual, multicultural evaluation to better support AI cultural alignment globally.

Improving Reproducibility in Evaluation through Multi-Level Annotator Modeling

As generative AI models such as large language models (LLMs) become more pervasive, ensuring the safety, robustness, and overall trustworthiness of these systems is paramount. However, AI is currently facing a reproducibility crisis driven by unreliable evaluations and unrepeatable experimental results. While human raters are often used to assess models for utility and safety, they introduce divergent biases and subjective opinions into their annotations. Overcoming this variance is exceptionally challenging because very little data exists to study how experimental repeatability actually improves as the annotator pool grows. Standard evaluation practices typically rely on a small number of annotations per item (often 3 to 5) and lack the persistent rater identifiers necessary to model individual variance across items. In this work, we introduce a multi-level bootstrapping approach to realistically model annotator behavior. Leveraging datasets with a large number of ratings and persistent rater identifiers, we analyze the tradeoffs between the number of items ($N$) and the number of responses per item ($K$) required to achieve statistical significance.

Learning Who Disagrees: Demographic Importance Weighting for Modeling Annotator Distributions with DiADEM

When humans label subjective content, they disagree, and that disagreement is not noise. It reflects genuine differences in perspective shaped by annotators' social identities and lived experiences. Yet standard practice still flattens these judgments into a single majority label, and recent LLM-based approaches fare no better: we show that prompted large language models, even with chain-of-thought reasoning, fail to recover the structure of human disagreement. We introduce DiADEM, a neural architecture that learns "how much each demographic axis matters" for predicting who will disagree and on what. DiADEM encodes annotators through per-demographic projections governed by a learned importance vector $\boldsymbolα$, fuses annotator and item representations via complementary concatenation and Hadamard interactions, and is trained with a novel item-level disagreement loss that directly penalizes mispredicted annotation variance. On the DICES conversational-safety and VOICED political-offense benchmarks, DiADEM substantially outperforms both the LLM-as-a-judge and neural model baselines across standard and perspectivist metrics, achieving strong disagreement tracking ($r{=}0.75$ on DICES). The learned $\boldsymbolα$ weights reveal that race and age consistently emerge as the most influential demographic factors driving annotator disagreement across both datasets. Our results demonstrate that explicitly modeling who annotators are not just what they label is essential for NLP systems that aim to faithfully represent human interpretive diversity.

LPI-RIT at LeWiDi-2025: Improving Distributional Predictions via Metadata and Loss Reweighting with DisCo

The Learning With Disagreements (LeWiDi) 2025 shared task is to model annotator disagreement through soft label distribution prediction and perspectivist evaluation, modeling annotators. We adapt DisCo (Distribution from Context), a neural architecture that jointly models item-level and annotator-level label distributions, and present detailed analysis and improvements. In this paper, we extend the DisCo by incorporating annotator metadata, enhancing input representations, and modifying the loss functions to capture disagreement patterns better. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate substantial improvements in both soft and perspectivist evaluation metrics across three datasets. We also conduct in-depth error and calibration analyses, highlighting the conditions under which improvements occur. Our findings underscore the value of disagreement-aware modeling and offer insights into how system components interact with the complexity of human-annotated data.

ProRefine: Inference-time Prompt Refinement with Textual Feedback

Agentic workflows, where multiple AI agents collaborate to accomplish complex tasks like reasoning or planning, are becoming increasingly prevalent. However, these workflows often suffer from error propagation and sub-optimal performance, largely due to poorly designed prompts that fail to effectively guide individual agents. This is a critical problem because it limits the reliability and scalability of these powerful systems. We introduce ProRefine, an innovative inference-time prompt optimization method that leverages textual feedback from large language models (LLMs) to address this challenge. ProRefine dynamically refines prompts for multi-step reasoning tasks without additional training or ground truth labels. Evaluated on five benchmark mathematical reasoning datasets, ProRefine significantly surpasses zero-shot Chain-of-Thought baselines by 3 to 37 percentage points. This approach not only boosts accuracy but also allows smaller models to match the performance of larger ones, highlighting its potential for efficient and scalable AI deployment, and democratizing access to high-performing AI.

Rater Cohesion and Quality from a Vicarious Perspective

Human feedback is essential for building human-centered AI systems across domains where disagreement is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Many disagreements, particularly in politically charged settings, arise because raters have opposing values or beliefs. Vicarious annotation is a method for breaking down disagreement by asking raters how they think others would annotate the data. In this paper, we explore the use of vicarious annotation with analytical methods for moderating rater disagreement. We employ rater cohesion metrics to study the potential influence of political affiliations and demographic backgrounds on raters' perceptions of offense. Additionally, we utilize CrowdTruth's rater quality metrics, which consider the demographics of the raters, to score the raters and their annotations. We study how the rater quality metrics influence the in-group and cross-group rater cohesion across the personal and vicarious levels.