Sai Praneeth Karimireddy
Publications
Targeted Speaker Poisoning Framework in Zero-Shot Text-to-Speech
Zero-shot Text-to-Speech (TTS) voice cloning poses severe privacy risks, demanding the removal of specific speaker identities from trained TTS models. Conventional machine unlearning is insufficient in this context, as zero-shot TTS can dynamically reconstruct voices from just reference prompts. We formalize this task as Speech Generation Speaker Poisoning (SGSP), in which we modify trained models to prevent the generation of specific identities while preserving utility for other speakers. We evaluate inference-time filtering and parameter-modification baselines across 1, 15, and 100 forgotten speakers. Performance is assessed through the trade-off between utility (WER) and privacy, quantified using AUC and Forget Speaker Similarity (FSSIM). We achieve strong privacy for up to 15 speakers but reveal scalability limits at 100 speakers due to increased identity overlap. Our study thus introduces a novel problem and evaluation framework toward further advances in generative voice privacy.
OpaqueToolsBench: Learning Nuances of Tool Behavior Through Interaction
Tool-calling is essential for Large Language Model (LLM) agents to complete real-world tasks. While most existing benchmarks assume simple, perfectly documented tools, real-world tools (e.g., general "search" APIs) are often opaque, lacking clear best practices or failure modes. Can LLM agents improve their performance in environments with opaque tools by interacting and subsequently improving documentation? To study this, we create OpaqueToolsBench, a benchmark consisting of three distinct task-oriented environments: general function calling, interactive chess playing, and long-trajectory agentic search. Each environment provides underspecified tools that models must learn to use effectively to complete the task. Results on OpaqueToolsBench suggest existing methods for automatically documenting tools are expensive and unreliable when tools are opaque. To address this, we propose a simple framework, ToolObserver, that iteratively refines tool documentation by observing execution feedback from tool-calling trajectories. Our approach outperforms existing methods on OpaqueToolsBench across datasets, even in relatively hard settings. Furthermore, for test-time tool exploration settings, our method is also efficient, consuming 3.5-7.5x fewer total tokens than the best baseline.
Sparks of Rationality: Do Reasoning LLMs Align with Human Judgment and Choice?
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly positioned as decision engines for hiring, healthcare, and economic judgment, yet real-world human judgment reflects a balance between rational deliberation and emotion-driven bias. If LLMs are to participate in high-stakes decisions or serve as models of human behavior, it is critical to assess whether they exhibit analogous patterns of (ir)rationalities and biases. To this end, we evaluate multiple LLM families on (i) benchmarks testing core axioms of rational choice and (ii) classic decision domains from behavioral economics and social norms where emotions are known to shape judgment and choice. Across settings, we show that deliberate "thinking" reliably improves rationality and pushes models toward expected-value maximization. To probe human-like affective distortions and their interaction with reasoning, we use two emotion-steering methods: in-context priming (ICP) and representation-level steering (RLS). ICP induces strong directional shifts that are often extreme and difficult to calibrate, whereas RLS produces more psychologically plausible patterns but with lower reliability. Our results suggest that the same mechanisms that improve rationality also amplify sensitivity to affective interventions, and that different steering methods trade off controllability against human-aligned behavior. Overall, this points to a tension between reasoning and affective steering, with implications for both human simulation and the safe deployment of LLM-based decision systems.