Existing large language model (LLM) evaluation benchmarks primarily focus on English, while current multilingual tasks lack parallel questions that specifically assess cross-lingual reasoning abilities. This dual limitation makes it challenging to assess LLMs’ performance in the multilingual setting comprehensively. To fill this gap, we introduce MMLU-ProX, a comprehensive benchmark covering 29 languages, built on an English benchmark. Each language version consists of 11,829 identical questions, enabling direct cross-lingual comparisons. Additionally, to meet efficient evaluation needs, we provide a lite version containing 658 questions per language. To ensure the high quality of MMLU-ProX, we employ a rigorous development process that involves multiple powerful LLMs for translation, followed by expert review to ensure accurate expression, consistent terminology, and cultural relevance. Building on this, we systematically evaluate 36 state-of-the-art LLMs, including reasoning-enhanced and multilingual-optimized LLMs. The results reveal significant disparities in the multilingual capabilities of LLMs: While they perform well in high-resource languages, their performance declines markedly in low-resource languages, particularly for African languages. Through MMLU-ProX, we aim to advance the development of more inclusive AI systems and promote equitable access to technology across global contexts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly exhibit anthropomorphism characteristics – human-like qualities portrayed across their outlook, language, behavior, and reasoning functions. Such characteristics enable more intuitive and engaging human-AI interactions. However, current research on anthropomorphism remains predominantly risk-focused, emphasizing over-trust and user deception while offering limited design guidance. We argue that anthropomorphism should instead be treated as a concept of design that can be intentionally tuned to support user goals. Drawing from multiple disciplines, we propose that the anthropomorphism of an LLM-based artifact should reflect the interaction between artifact designers and interpreters. This interaction is facilitated by cues embedded in the artifact by the designers and the (cognitive) responses of the interpreters to the cues. Cues are categorized into four dimensions: perceptive, linguistic, behavioral, and cognitive. By analyzing the manifestation and effectiveness of each cue, we provide a unified taxonomy with actionable levers for practitioners. Consequently, we advocate for function-oriented evaluations of anthropomorphic design.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in morally sensitive domains, it is crucial to understand how persona traits affect their moral reasoning and persuasive behavior. We present the first large-scale study of multi-dimensional persona effects in AI-AI debates over real-world moral dilemmas. Using a 6-dimensional persona space (age, gender, country, social class, ideology, and personality), we simulate structured debates between AI agents over 131 relationship-based cases. Our results show that personas affect initial moral stances and debate outcomes, with political ideology and personality traits exerting the strongest influence. Persuasive success varies across traits, with liberal and open personalities reaching higher consensus. While logit-based confidence grows during debates, emotional and credibility-based appeals diminish, indicating more tempered argumentation over time. These trends mirror findings from psychology and cultural studies, reinforcing the need for persona-aware evaluation frameworks for AI moral reasoning.

Role-playing agents (RPAs), powered by large language models, have emerged as a flourishing field of applications. However, a key challenge lies in assessing whether RPAs accurately reproduce the personas of target characters, namely their character fidelity. Existing methods mainly focus on the knowledge and linguistic patterns of characters. This paper, instead, introduces a novel perspective to evaluate the personality fidelity of RPAs with psychological scales. Overcoming drawbacks of previous self-report assessments on RPAs, we propose InCharacter, namely **In**terviewing **Character** agents for personality tests. Experiments include various types of RPAs and LLMs, covering 32 distinct characters on 14 widely used psychological scales. The results validate the effectiveness of InCharacter in measuring RPA personalities. Then, with InCharacter, we show that state-of-the-art RPAs exhibit personalities highly aligned with the human-perceived personalities of the characters, achieving an accuracy up to 80.7%.

Detecting hate speech and offensive language is essential for maintaining a safe and respectful digital environment. This study examines the limitations of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) in identifying offensive content within systematically perturbed data, with a focus on Chinese, a language particularly susceptible to such perturbations. We introduce ToxiCloakCN, an enhanced dataset derived from ToxiCN, augmented with homophonic substitutions and emoji transformations, to test the robustness of LLMs against these cloaking perturbations. Our findings reveal that existing models significantly underperform in detecting offensive content when these perturbations are applied. We provide an in-depth analysis of how different types of offensive content are affected by these perturbations and explore the alignment between human and model explanations of offensiveness. Our work highlights the urgent need for more advanced techniques in offensive language detection to combat the evolving tactics used to evade detection mechanisms.

Lexical-syntactic flexibility, in the form of conversion (or zero-derivation) is a hallmark of English morphology. In conversion, a word with one part of speech is placed in a non-prototypical context, where it is coerced to behave as if it had a different part of speech. However, while this process affects a large part of the English lexicon, little work has been done to establish the degree to which language models capture this type of generalization. This paper reports the first study on the behavior of large language models with reference to conversion. We design a task for testing lexical-syntactic flexibility—the degree to which models can generalize over words in a construction with a non-prototypical part of speech. This task is situated within a natural language inference paradigm. We test the abilities of five language models—two proprietary models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4), three open source model (Mistral 7B, Falcon 40B, and Llama 2 70B). We find that GPT-4 performs best on the task, followed by GPT-3.5, but that the open source language models are also able to perform it and that the 7-billion parameter Mistral displays as little difference between its baseline performance on the natural language inference task and the non-prototypical syntactic category task, as the massive GPT-4.

The spread of disinformation and propagandistic content poses a threat to societal harmony, undermining informed decision-making and trust in reliable sources. Online platforms often serve as breeding grounds for such content, and malicious actors exploit the vulnerabilities of audiences to shape public opinion. Although there have been research efforts aimed at the automatic identification of disinformation and propaganda in social media content, there remain challenges in terms of performance. The ArAIEval shared task aims to further research on these particular issues within the context of the Arabic language. In this paper, we discuss our participation in these shared tasks. We competed in subtasks 1A and 2A, where our submitted system secured positions 9th and 10th, respectively. Our experiments consist of fine-tuning transformer models and using zero- and few-shot learning with GPT-4.