Udari Madhushani Sehwag
Publications
The Low Frequency Trap: Video Language Models Fail at Simple Event Bookkeeping
Real-world video benchmarks provide broad coverage, but their fixed clips entangle event count, rate, duration, and visual complexity, making failure modes hard to isolate. While existing programmatic benchmarks offer better control, they score only the final answer rather than auditing reported events against executable ground truth. To bridge this gap, we introduce trace-grounded parametric profiling for event counting in three controlled video tasks: bouncing-ball wall contacts, visual blinks, and categorical state transitions. Across 2,190 videos, we vary event count N and frequency F while holding rendering fixed. Each video includes an executable event trace for capability-surface estimation and timestamp-level evaluation. Our results reveal a staged temporal failure. At an 80% reliability threshold, Gemini 3.6 Flash reliably counts persistent state transitions up to 12 events at 0.5 and 1.0 Hz, yet demonstrates no reliable positive-count region for transient blinking events. Thus, event representation dictates whether a model initially accesses evidence -- a limitation that compounds as count and frequency increase. In the high-count, high-frequency regime, only 0.2% of final counts are correct and the model recovers just 18.1% of true events. To test if visual access is the primary bottleneck, we increase sampling rate. Although this boosts Bounce Ball accuracy from 19.6% to 29.3%, the reported sequence agrees with ground truth only 3.7% of the time. Extra frames can therefore inflate final scores without producing faithful event recovery. Different prompting strategies yield similarly limited gains, and real-world video evaluations show the same concentration of success at low event counts. Ultimately, trace-grounded profiling shifts video evaluation from aggregate accuracy metrics to a detailed diagnostic of where temporal reasoning fails.
SciPredict: Can LLMs Predict the Outcomes of Scientific Experiments in Natural Sciences?
Accelerating scientific discovery requires the identification of which experiments would yield the best outcomes before committing resources to costly physical validation. While existing benchmarks evaluate LLMs on scientific knowledge and reasoning, their ability to predict experimental outcomes - a task where AI could significantly exceed human capabilities - remains largely underexplored. We introduce SciPredict, a benchmark comprising 405 tasks derived from recent empirical studies in 33 specialized sub-fields of physics, biology, and chemistry. SciPredict addresses two critical questions: (a) can LLMs predict the outcome of scientific experiments with sufficient accuracy? and (b) can such predictions be reliably used in the scientific research process? Evaluations reveal fundamental limitations on both fronts. Model accuracies are 14-26% and human expert performance is $\approx$20%. Although some frontier models exceed human performance model accuracy is still far below what would enable reliable experimental guidance. Even within the limited performance, models fail to distinguish reliable predictions from unreliable ones, achieving only $\approx$20% accuracy regardless of their confidence or whether they judge outcomes as predictable without physical experimentation. Human experts, in contrast, demonstrate strong calibration: their accuracy increases from $\approx$5% to $\approx$80% as they deem outcomes more predictable without conducting the experiment. SciPredict establishes a rigorous framework demonstrating that superhuman performance in experimental science requires not just better predictions, but better awareness of prediction reliability. For reproducibility all our data and code are provided at https://github.com/scaleapi/scipredict
Defensive Refusal Bias: How Safety Alignment Fails Cyber Defenders
Safety alignment in large language models (LLMs), particularly for cybersecurity tasks, primarily focuses on preventing misuse. While this approach reduces direct harm, it obscures a complementary failure mode: denial of assistance to legitimate defenders. We study Defensive Refusal Bias -- the tendency of safety-tuned frontier LLMs to refuse assistance for authorized defensive cybersecurity tasks when those tasks include similar language to an offensive cyber task. Based on 2,390 real-world examples from the National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition (NCCDC), we find that LLMs refuse defensive requests containing security-sensitive keywords at $2.72\times$ the rate of semantically equivalent neutral requests ($p < 0.001$). The highest refusal rates occur in the most operationally critical tasks: system hardening (43.8%) and malware analysis (34.3%). Interestingly, explicit authorization, where the user directly instructs the model that they have authority to complete the target task, increases refusal rates, suggesting models interpret justifications as adversarial rather than exculpatory. These findings are urgent for interactive use and critical for autonomous defensive agents, which cannot rephrase refused queries or retry. Our findings suggest that current LLM cybersecurity alignment relies on semantic similarity to harmful content rather than reasoning about intent or authorization. We call for mitigations that analyze intent to maximize defensive capabilities while still preventing harmful compliance.
LHAW: Controllable Underspecification for Long-Horizon Tasks
Long-horizon workflow agents that operate effectively over extended periods are essential for truly autonomous systems. Their reliable execution critically depends on the ability to reason through ambiguous situations in which clarification seeking is necessary to ensure correct task execution. However, progress is limited by the lack of scalable, task-agnostic frameworks for systematically curating and measuring the impact of ambiguity across custom workflows. We address this gap by introducing LHAW (Long-Horizon Augmented Workflows), a modular, dataset-agnostic synthetic pipeline that transforms any well-specified task into controllable underspecified variants by systematically removing information across four dimensions - Goals, Constraints, Inputs, and Context - at configurable severity levels. Unlike approaches that rely on LLM predictions of ambiguity, LHAW validates variants through empirical agent trials, classifying them as outcome-critical, divergent, or benign based on observed terminal state divergence. We release 285 task variants from TheAgentCompany, SWE-Bench Pro and MCP-Atlas according to our taxonomy alongside formal analysis measuring how current agents detect, reason about, and resolve underspecification across ambiguous settings. LHAW provides the first systematic framework for cost-sensitive evaluation of agent clarification behavior in long-horizon settings, enabling development of reliable autonomous systems.