The paper explores the performance of LLMs in the context of multi-dimensional analytic writing assessments, i.e. their ability to provide both scores and comments based on multiple assessment criteria. Using a corpus of literature reviews written by L2 graduate students and assessed by human experts against 9 analytic criteria, we prompt several popular LLMs to perform the same task under various conditions. To evaluate the quality of feedback comments, we apply a novel feedback comment quality evaluation framework. This framework is interpretable, cost-efficient, scalable, and reproducible, compared to existing methods that rely on manual judgments. We find that LLMs can generate reasonably good and generally reliable multi-dimensional analytic assessments. We release our corpus and code for reproducibility.

During spontaneous conversations, speakers collaborate on novel referring expressions, which they can then re-use in subsequent conversations. Understanding such referring expressions is an important ability for an embodied agent, so that it can carry out tasks in the real world. This requires integrating and understanding language, vision, and conversational interaction. We study the capabilities of seven state-of-the-art Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) as overhearers to a corpus of spontaneous conversations between pairs of human discourse participants engaged in a collaborative object-matching task. We find that such a task remains challenging for current LVLMs and they all fail to show a consistent performance improvement as they overhear more conversations from the same discourse participants repeating the same task for multiple rounds. We release our corpus and code for reproducibility and to facilitate future research.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into personal writing tools, a critical question arises: can LLMs faithfully imitate an individual’s writing style from just a few examples? Personal style is often subtle and implicit, making it difficult to specify through prompts yet essential for user-aligned generation. This work presents a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs’ ability to mimic personal writing styles via in-context learning from a small number of user-authored samples. We introduce an ensemble of complementary metrics—including authorship attribution, authorship verification, style matching, and AI detection—to robustly assess style imitation. Our evaluation spans over 40,000 generations per model across domains such as news, email, forums, and blogs, covering writing samples from more than 400 real-world authors. Results show that while LLMs can approximate user styles in structured formats like news and email, they struggle with nuanced, informal writing in blogs and forums. Further analysis on various prompting strategies such as number of demonstrations reveal key limitations in effective personalization. Our findings highlight a fundamental gap in personalized LLM adaptation and the need for improved techniques to support implicit, style-consistent generation. To aid future research and for reproducibility, we open-source our data and code.

This paper shows the benefits and fruitfulness of evaluating LLMs with multiple problems at once, a paradigm we call multi-problem evaluation (MPE). Unlike conventional single-problem evaluation, where a prompt presents a single problem and expects one specific answer, MPE places multiple problems together in a single prompt and assesses how well an LLM answers all these problems in a single output. Leveraging 6 classification and 12 reasoning benchmarks that already exist, we introduce a new benchmark called ZeMPE (Zero-shot Multi-Problem Evaluation), comprising 53,100 zero-shot multi-problem prompts. We experiment with a total of 13 LLMs from 5 model families on ZeMPE to present a comprehensive and systematic MPE. Our results show that LLMs are capable of handling multiple problems from a single data source as well as handling them separately, but there are conditions this multiple problem handling capability falls short. In addition, we perform in-depth further analyses and explore model-level factors that may enable multiple problem handling capabilities in LLMs. We release our corpus and code to facilitate future research.

We propose using prompts made up of multiple problems to evaluate LLM capabilities, an approach we call multi-problem evaluation. We examine 7 LLMs on 4 related task types constructed from 6 existing classification benchmarks. We find that while LLMs can generally perform multiple homogeneous classifications at once (Batch Classification) as well as when they do so separately, they perform significantly worse on two selection tasks that are conceptually equivalent to Batch Classification and involve selecting indices of text falling into each class label, either independently or altogether. We show that such a significant performance drop is due to LLMs’ inability to adequately combine index selection with text classification. Such a drop is surprisingly observed across all LLMs attested, under zero-shot, few-shot, and CoT settings, and even with a novel synthetic dataset, potentially reflecting an inherent capability limitation with modern LLMs.

We propose a novel clustering pipeline to detect and characterize influence campaigns from documents. This approach clusters parts of document, detects clusters that likely reflect an influence campaign, and then identifies documents linked to an influence campaign via their association with the high-influence clusters. Our approach outperforms both the direct document-level classification and the direct document-level clustering approach in predicting if a document is part of an influence campaign. We propose various novel techniques to enhance our pipeline, including using an existing event factuality prediction system to obtain document parts, and aggregating multiple clustering experiments to improve the performance of both cluster and document classification. Classifying documents after clustering not only accurately extracts the parts of the documents that are relevant to influence campaigns, but also captures influence campaigns as a coordinated and holistic phenomenon. Our approach makes possible more fine-grained and interpretable characterizations of influence campaigns from documents.