Michael J. Wooldridge


2025

pdf bib
Assessing Dialect Fairness and Robustness of Large Language Models in Reasoning Tasks
Fangru Lin | Shaoguang Mao | Emanuele La Malfa | Valentin Hofmann | Adrian de Wynter | Xun Wang | Si-Qing Chen | Michael J. Wooldridge | Janet B. Pierrehumbert | Furu Wei
Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Language is not monolithic. While benchmarks, including those designed for multiple languages, are often used as proxies to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), they tend to overlook the nuances of within-language variation and thus fail to model the experience of speakers of non-standard dialects. Focusing on African American Vernacular English (AAVE), we present the first study aimed at objectively assessing the fairness and robustness of LLMs in handling dialects across canonical reasoning tasks, including algorithm, math, logic, and integrated reasoning. We introduce **ReDial** (**Re**asoning with **Dial**ect Queries), a benchmark containing 1.2K+ parallel query pairs in Standardized English and AAVE. We hire AAVE speakers, including experts with computer science backgrounds, to rewrite seven popular benchmarks,such as HumanEval and GSM8K. With ReDial, we evaluate widely used LLMs, including GPT, Claude, Llama, Mistral, and the Phi model families. Our findings reveal that almost all of these widely used models show significant brittleness and unfairness to queries in AAVE. Our work establishes a systematic and objective framework for analyzing LLM bias in dialectal queries. Moreover, it highlights how mainstream LLMs provide unfair service to dialect speakers in reasoning tasks, laying a critical foundation for future research.

2024

pdf bib
A Notion of Complexity for Theory of Mind via Discrete World Models
X. Angelo Huang | Emanuele La Malfa | Samuele Marro | Andrea Asperti | Anthony G. Cohn | Michael J. Wooldridge
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024

Theory of Mind (ToM) can be used to assess the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in complex scenarios where social reasoning is required. While the research community has proposed many ToM benchmarks, their hardness varies greatly, and their complexity is not well defined. This work proposes a framework inspired by cognitive load theory to measure the complexity of ToM tasks. We quantify a problem’s complexity as the number of states necessary to solve it correctly. Our complexity measure also accounts for spurious states of a ToM problem designed to make it apparently harder. We use our method to assess the complexity of five widely adopted ToM benchmarks. On top of this framework, we design a prompting technique that augments the information available to a model with a description of how the environment changes with the agents’ interactions. We name this technique Discrete World Models (DWM) and show how it elicits superior performance on ToM tasks.