Auditory Illusion Benchmark for Large Audio Language Models

Perceptual illusions have long served as crucial probes into human cognition, revealing biases and limitations of perception. In the auditory domain, such illusions provide a unique lens for testing whether Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) replicate human perceptual tendencies. Despite their importance, most benchmarks focus on visual illusions or general audio tasks, leaving auditory illusions underexplored. To this end, we present AIB, the first auditory illusion benchmark for LALMs, covering ten representative illusions across music, sound, and speech, each annotated for the presence of knowledge-based priors. Our methodology pairs model evaluation with controlled human listening studies, enabling direct comparison of responses. Results show systematic differences: while most LALMs remain signal-faithful on low-level acoustic illusions, several exhibit more human-like responses when linguistic or musical priors are involved, although no model matches the human perceptual profile. These findings highlight the current limitations of LALMs as cognitive models. By establishing auditory illusions as a rigorous testbed, our work offers a new perspective for probing neural black-box models and advancing understanding of auditory cognition. AIB is publicly available at https://github.com/gillosae/aib.

Evaluating SAT Solver Metrics as Predictors of Human-Perceived Nonogram Difficulty

Algorithmic solver effort is often assumed to align with perceived puzzle difficulty, but this assumption is rarely tested against human solving data. We evaluate this assumption for Nonograms, a popular logic puzzle similar to Sudoku in which numeric clues along each row and column determine a unique solution grid. We formulate Nonograms as a constraint satisfaction problem and solve them using existing SAT solvers. We then conduct a user study in which we collect data on both participant interactions and reported difficulty. We find that neither participants' reported difficulty nor their behavioural signals correlate meaningfully with SAT solver metrics; however, we find evidence that expertise moderates the relationship between solver metrics and reported difficulty. In this process, we uncover distinct, recurring solving strategies that indicate human preference for complex propagation, diverging from solver-measured complexity.

Communicating Credit Risk with Large Language Models: Evaluation of Explanations from Standard and Alternative Data-Based Models

Credit decisioning is a high-stakes task in which model outputs must be accurate and explainable to support compliant decisions. Although modern credit risk models such as eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) improve predictive performance, their explanations are often too technical for stakeholders creating communication gaps that can shape approvals, denials, and fairness judgments. We examine whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as explanation layers that translate post-hoc explanation artefacts into stakeholder-appropriate risk narratives. Using Freddie Mac single-family loan-level data, we develop three pipelines: standard tabular (XGBoost + SHAP), and two with alternative data, a pure network-based (GNN + GNNExplainer), and a bimodal one (combining tabular and network data). We generate narratives with three LLM configurations: a small fine-tuned LLM (Gemma 3 4B), a large fine-tuned LLM (DeepSeek R1 70B), and a zero-shot commercial LLM (Gemini 2.5). Explanation quality is evaluated through automated checks across all pipelines and a human study of bimodal explanations comparing credit risk professionals and non-professionals on eight decision-relevant dimensions. We have three main findings. First, the pipeline accounts for higher variance in evidence-grounding scores than the language model, meaning that the binding constraint on explanation quality is the evidence representation, not the model used. Second, the explanation narratives reliably name the influential factors but are less reliable when stating the direction of influence, which may be consequential for adverse-action communication. Finally, professionals apply stricter evidentiary standards than non-professionals. We discuss implications for the governance of risk models, including deployment considerations and the value of domain-aligned LLMs in regulated credit settings.

CBX-Bench: A Human-Aligned MLLM Council for Benchmarking Concept Bottleneck Model Explanations

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are designed to make visual classification interpretable by expressing predictions through human-understandable concepts. Although interpretability is the central motivation for CBMs, they are still largely evaluated as predictive models by downstream classification accuracy, supplemented by isolated qualitative examples. This highlights a pressing need for quantitative measures, a challenge complicated by the infeasibility of ground-truth concept annotation at scale and the open nature of concept lists due to a lack of consensus. To fill this gap, we develop a multimodal large language model (MLLM) council that, given an image and its CBM explanation, produces an explanation quality score. To ground and validate the council, we first conduct a human study to establish a ground-truth reference for CBM explanation quality: for an image, annotators compare explanations from two of LF-CBM, VLG-CBM, and CBM-Suite and choose the more useful one, or mark them as equally good or equally bad, yielding 2700 judgments over 900 image-comparison items on CUB-200, ImageNet-100, and Places365. Against this human reference, our five-model council, consisting of open-weight MLLMs, recovers over 70% of strict human preference rankings, rising to 83% on items where human annotators unanimously agree. Building on this validated council, we introduce CBX-Bench, a public benchmark and leaderboard: authors of new CBMs can submit their model's explanations, and CBX-Bench scores them with the council and maintains dataset-level rankings of explanation quality. CBX-Bench thus provides a human-aligned, scalable evaluation of CBM explanations beyond accuracy and isolated qualitative examples. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/meric-karadag/cbx-bench.

A Production-Oriented Framework for Evaluation of SFX Generation

Industrial sound design requires audio generation systems that not only produce realistic audio, but also preserve the perceptual identity of a reference, support controllable variation, and remain efficient for practical workflows. Existing evaluations are usually tied to text-to-audio (TTA), unconditional, or task-specific settings, limiting assessment for reference-guided sound effects (SFX) variation. To address this gap, we present a production-oriented evaluation framework for structured comparison of heterogeneous audio generation and editing methods. Our framework identifies nine production requirements and explicitly accounts for differences in model capabilities, enabling comparison under a common production objective. A two-stage protocol is introduced: (1) a reference-guided audio-to-audio (ATA) variation task, in which all methods are evaluated under the same ESC-50 SFX adaptation setup, and (2) capability-specific analyses of native operations such as SFX morphing, temporal and energy alignment, inpainting, and targeted editing. This framework combines objective metrics (including FAD, ImageBind-based reference alignment, and diversity across generated variants), together with a human study of perceptual identity preservation and transient diagnosis. Our study reveals complementary strengths and trade-offs across baselines for different production needs. Among the full-generation baselines evaluated under a shared ATA setting, AudioX provides the strongest overall trade-off between reference alignment and diversity while still supporting SFX morphing. Other baselines remain most suitable for specific editing operations. Our framework establishes a structured evaluation and decision protocol for reference-guided SFX variation and provides a practical basis for designing future unified industrial audio generation pipelines. Audio demos are on the accompanying web page.

Helpful or Harmful? Evaluating LLM-Assisted Vulnerability Patching via a Human Study

Software vulnerability remediation is a cognitively demanding task that requires specialized security expertise often lacking in general developers. In the meantime, Large Language Models (LLMs) assisted tools show potential in vulnerability detection, location, and repair tasks. [Hypothesis:] While LLM-assistance is hypothesized to accelerate patching, it also risks introducing hallucinations or insecure code, leading to a higher likelihood of generating superficial repairs that bypass the standard functionality checks but fail the security validation. [Objective:] We aim to present an empirical experiment, unveiling the capability of LLM-assisted vulnerability patching compared to manual debugging on human participants in real-world scenarios. [Method:] We plan to conduct a controlled experiment using a Balanced Crossover design. For that, we have developed a WebApp for code execution and integrated hidden Ghost Tests to verify patch integrity beyond visible functional requirements. The experiment involves training and evaluation scenarios. The remediation speed, remediation efficacy for both standard functionality tests and security tests, and participant perception will be evaluated. [Pilot Study:] A pilot experiment with a small sample of participants has been conducted, providing insights for the following study.