Reasoning with Preference Constraints: A Benchmark for Language Models in Many-to-One Matching Markets

Recent advances in reasoning with large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on complex mathematical tasks, including combinatorial optimization. Techniques such as Chain-of-Thought and In-Context Learning have further enhanced this capability, making LLMs both powerful and accessible tools for a wide range of users, including non-experts. However, applying LLMs to matching problems, which require reasoning under preferential and structural constraints, remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a novel benchmark of 369 instances of the College Admission Problem, a canonical example of a matching problem with preferences, to evaluate LLMs across key dimensions: feasibility, stability, and optimality. We employ this benchmark to assess the performance of several open-weight LLMs. Our results first reveal that while LLMs can satisfy certain constraints, they struggle to meet all evaluation criteria consistently. They also show that reasoning LLMs, like QwQ and GPT-oss, significantly outperform traditional models such as Llama, Qwen or Mistral, defined here as models used without any dedicated reasoning mechanisms. Moreover, we observed that LLMs reacted differently to the various prompting strategies tested, which include Chain-of-Thought, In-Context Learning and role-based prompting, with no prompt consistently offering the best performance. Finally, we report the performances from iterative prompting with auto-generated feedback and show that they are not monotonic; they can peak early and then significantly decline in later attempts. Overall, this work offers a new perspective on model reasoning performance and the effectiveness of prompting strategies in combinatorial optimization problems with preferential constraints.

Neither Valid nor Reliable? Investigating the Use of LLMs as Judges

Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems remains a core challenge of natural language processing (NLP), further complicated by the rise of large language models (LLMs) that aims to be general-purpose. Recently, large language models as judges (LLJs) have emerged as a promising alternative to traditional metrics, but their validity remains underexplored. This position paper argues that the current enthusiasm around LLJs may be premature, as their adoption has outpaced rigorous scrutiny of their reliability and validity as evaluators. Drawing on measurement theory from the social sciences, we identify and critically assess four core assumptions underlying the use of LLJs: their ability to act as proxies for human judgment, their capabilities as evaluators, their scalability, and their cost-effectiveness. We examine how each of these assumptions may be challenged by the inherent limitations of LLMs, LLJs, or current practices in NLG evaluation. To ground our analysis, we explore three applications of LLJs: text summarization, data annotation, and safety alignment. Finally, we highlight the need for more responsible evaluation practices in LLJs evaluation, to ensure that their growing role in the field supports, rather than undermines, progress in NLG.

Fairness in Federated Learning: Fairness for Whom?

Fairness in federated learning has emerged as a rapidly growing area of research, with numerous works proposing formal definitions and algorithmic interventions. Yet, despite this technical progress, fairness in FL is often defined and evaluated in ways that abstract away from the sociotechnical contexts in which these systems are deployed. In this paper, we argue that existing approaches tend to optimize narrow system level metrics, such as performance parity or contribution-based rewards, while overlooking how harms arise throughout the FL lifecycle and how they impact diverse stakeholders. We support this claim through a critical analysis of the literature, based on a systematic annotation of papers for their fairness definitions, design decisions, evaluation practices, and motivating use cases. Our analysis reveals five recurring pitfalls: 1) fairness framed solely through the lens of server client architecture, 2) a mismatch between simulations and motivating use-cases and contexts, 3) definitions that conflate protecting the system with protecting its users, 4) interventions that target isolated stages of the lifecycle while neglecting upstream and downstream effects, 5) and a lack of multi-stakeholder alignment where multiple fairness definitions can be relevant at once. Building on these insights, we propose a harm centered framework that links fairness definitions to concrete risks and stakeholder vulnerabilities. We conclude with recommendations for more holistic, context-aware, and accountable fairness research in FL.

Say It Another Way: A Framework for User-Grounded Paraphrasing

Small changes in how a prompt is worded can lead to meaningful differences in the behavior of large language models (LLMs), raising concerns about the stability and reliability of their evaluations. While prior work has explored simple formatting changes, these rarely capture the kinds of natural variation seen in real-world language use. We propose a controlled paraphrasing framework based on a taxonomy of minimal linguistic transformations to systematically generate natural prompt variations. Using the BBQ dataset, we validate our method with both human annotations and automated checks, then use it to study how LLMs respond to paraphrased prompts in stereotype evaluation tasks. Our analysis shows that even subtle prompt modifications can lead to substantial changes in model behavior. These results highlight the need for robust, paraphrase-aware evaluation protocols.

Crossing Boundaries: Leveraging Semantic Divergences to Explore Cultural Novelty in Cooking Recipes

Novelty modeling and detection is a core topic in Natural Language Processing (NLP), central to numerous tasks such as recommender systems and automatic summarization. It involves identifying pieces of text that deviate in some way from previously known information. However, novelty is also a crucial determinant of the unique perception of relevance and quality of an experience, as it rests upon each individual's understanding of the world. Social factors, particularly cultural background, profoundly influence perceptions of novelty and innovation. Cultural novelty arises from differences in salience and novelty as shaped by the distance between distinct communities. While cultural diversity has garnered increasing attention in artificial intelligence (AI), the lack of robust metrics for quantifying cultural novelty hinders a deeper understanding of these divergences. This gap limits quantifying and understanding cultural differences within computational frameworks. To address this, we propose an interdisciplinary framework that integrates knowledge from sociology and management. Central to our approach is GlobalFusion, a novel dataset comprising 500 dishes and approximately 100,000 cooking recipes capturing cultural adaptation from over 150 countries. By introducing a set of Jensen-Shannon Divergence metrics for novelty, we leverage this dataset to analyze textual divergences when recipes from one community are modified by another with a different cultural background. The results reveal significant correlations between our cultural novelty metrics and established cultural measures based on linguistic, religious, and geographical distances. Our findings highlight the potential of our framework to advance the understanding and measurement of cultural diversity in AI.

The Curious Case of Arbitrariness in Machine Learning

Algorithmic modelling relies on limited information in data to extrapolate outcomes for unseen scenarios, often embedding an element of arbitrariness in its decisions. A perspective on this arbitrariness that has recently gained interest is multiplicity-the study of arbitrariness across a set of "good models", i.e., those likely to be deployed in practice. In this work, we systemize the literature on multiplicity by: (a) formalizing the terminology around model design choices and their contribution to arbitrariness, (b) expanding the definition of multiplicity to incorporate underrepresented forms beyond just predictions and explanations, (c) clarifying the distinction between multiplicity and other traditional lenses of arbitrariness, i.e., uncertainty and variance, and (d) distilling the benefits and potential risks of multiplicity into overarching trends, situating it within the broader landscape of responsible AI. We conclude by identifying open research questions and highlighting emerging trends in this young but rapidly growing area of research.

Embedding Cultural Diversity in Prototype-based Recommender Systems

Popularity bias in recommender systems can increase cultural overrepresentation by favoring norms from dominant cultures and marginalizing underrepresented groups. This issue is critical for platforms offering cultural products, as they influence consumption patterns and human perceptions. In this work, we address popularity bias by identifying demographic biases within prototype-based matrix factorization methods. Using the country of origin as a proxy for cultural identity, we link this demographic attribute to popularity bias by refining the embedding space learning process. First, we propose filtering out irrelevant prototypes to improve representativity. Second, we introduce a regularization technique to enforce a uniform distribution of prototypes within the embedding space. Across four datasets, our results demonstrate a 27\% reduction in the average rank of long-tail items and a 2\% reduction in the average rank of items from underrepresented countries. Additionally, our model achieves a 2\% improvement in HitRatio@10 compared to the state-of-the-art, highlighting that fairness is enhanced without compromising recommendation quality. Moreover, the distribution of prototypes leads to more inclusive explanations by better aligning items with diverse prototypes.

Different Horses for Different Courses: Comparing Bias Mitigation Algorithms in ML

With fairness concerns gaining significant attention in Machine Learning (ML), several bias mitigation techniques have been proposed, often compared against each other to find the best method. These benchmarking efforts tend to use a common setup for evaluation under the assumption that providing a uniform environment ensures a fair comparison. However, bias mitigation techniques are sensitive to hyperparameter choices, random seeds, feature selection, etc., meaning that comparison on just one setting can unfairly favour certain algorithms. In this work, we show significant variance in fairness achieved by several algorithms and the influence of the learning pipeline on fairness scores. We highlight that most bias mitigation techniques can achieve comparable performance, given the freedom to perform hyperparameter optimization, suggesting that the choice of the evaluation parameters-rather than the mitigation technique itself-can sometimes create the perceived superiority of one method over another. We hope our work encourages future research on how various choices in the lifecycle of developing an algorithm impact fairness, and trends that guide the selection of appropriate algorithms.

Beyond the Safety Bundle: Auditing the Helpful and Harmless Dataset

In an effort to mitigate the harms of large language models (LLMs), learning from human feedback (LHF) has been used to steer LLMs towards outputs that are intended to be both less harmful and more helpful. Despite the widespread adoption of LHF in practice, the quality of this feedback and its effectiveness as a safety mitigation technique remain unclear. This study addresses these issues by auditing the widely-used Helpful and Harmless (HH) dataset by Anthropic. Our work includes: (1) a thorough investigation of the dataset's content through both manual and automated evaluation; (2) experiments demonstrating the dataset's impact on models' safety; and (3) an analysis of the 100 most influential papers citing this dataset. Through our audit, we showcase how conceptualization failures and quality issues identified in the HH dataset can create additional harms by leading to disparate safety behaviors across demographic groups. Our findings highlight the need for more nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to safety mitigation in LLMs.

Multilingual Hallucination Gaps in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as alternatives to traditional search engines given their capacity to generate text that resembles human language. However, this shift is concerning, as LLMs often generate hallucinations, misleading or false information that appears highly credible. In this study, we explore the phenomenon of hallucinations across multiple languages in freeform text generation, focusing on what we call multilingual hallucination gaps. These gaps reflect differences in the frequency of hallucinated answers depending on the prompt and language used. To quantify such hallucinations, we used the FactScore metric and extended its framework to a multilingual setting. We conducted experiments using LLMs from the LLaMA, Qwen, and Aya families, generating biographies in 19 languages and comparing the results to Wikipedia pages. Our results reveal variations in hallucination rates, especially between high and low resource languages, raising important questions about LLM multilingual performance and the challenges in evaluating hallucinations in multilingual freeform text generation.