CogBias: Measuring and Mitigating Cognitive Bias in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making contexts. While prior work has shown that LLMs exhibit cognitive biases behaviorally, whether these biases correspond to identifiable internal representations and can be mitigated through targeted intervention remains an open question. We define LLM cognitive bias as systematic, reproducible deviations from correct answers in tasks with computable ground-truth baselines, and introduce LLM CogBias, a benchmark organized around four families of cognitive biases: Judgment, Information Processing, Social, and Response. We evaluate three LLMs and find that cognitive biases emerge systematically across all four families, with magnitudes and debiasing responses that are strongly family-dependent: prompt-level debiasing substantially reduces Response biases but backfires for Judgment biases. Using linear probes under a contrastive design, we show that these biases are encoded as linearly separable directions in model activation space. Finally, we apply activation steering to modulate biased behavior, achieving 26--32\% reduction in bias score (fraction of biased responses) while preserving downstream capability on 25 benchmarks (Llama: negligible degradation; Qwen: up to $-$19.0pp for Judgment biases). Despite near-orthogonal bias representations across models (mean cosine similarity 0.01), steering reduces bias at similar rates across architectures ($r(246)$=.621, $p$<.001), suggesting shared functional organization.

SynSym: A Synthetic Data Generation Framework for Psychiatric Symptom Identification

Psychiatric symptom identification on social media aims to infer fine-grained mental health symptoms from user-generated posts, allowing a detailed understanding of users' mental states. However, the construction of large-scale symptom-level datasets remains challenging due to the resource-intensive nature of expert labeling and the lack of standardized annotation guidelines, which in turn limits the generalizability of models to identify diverse symptom expressions from user-generated text. To address these issues, we propose SynSym, a synthetic data generation framework for constructing generalizable datasets for symptom identification. Leveraging large language models (LLMs), SynSym constructs high-quality training samples by (1) expanding each symptom into sub-concepts to enhance the diversity of generated expressions, (2) producing synthetic expressions that reflect psychiatric symptoms in diverse linguistic styles, and (3) composing realistic multi-symptom expressions, informed by clinical co-occurrence patterns. We validate SynSym on three benchmark datasets covering different styles of depressive symptom expression. Experimental results demonstrate that models trained solely on the synthetic data generated by SynSym perform comparably to those trained on real data, and benefit further from additional fine-tuning with real data. These findings underscore the potential of synthetic data as an alternative resource to real-world annotations in psychiatric symptom modeling, and SynSym serves as a practical framework for generating clinically relevant and realistic symptom expressions.

Understanding Moral Reasoning Trajectories in Large Language Models: Toward Probing-Based Explainability

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in morally sensitive decision-making, yet how they organize ethical frameworks across reasoning steps remains underexplored. We introduce \textit{moral reasoning trajectories}, sequences of ethical framework invocations across intermediate reasoning steps, and analyze their dynamics across six models and three benchmarks. We find that moral reasoning involves systematic multi-framework deliberation: 55.4--57.7\% of consecutive steps involve framework switches, and only 16.4--17.8\% of trajectories remain framework-consistent. Unstable trajectories remain 1.29$\times$ more susceptible to persuasive attacks ($p=0.015$). At the representation level, linear probes localize framework-specific encoding to model-specific layers (layer 63/81 for Llama-3.3-70B; layer 17/81 for Qwen2.5-72B), achieving 13.8--22.6\% lower KL divergence than the training-set prior baseline. Lightweight activation steering modulates framework integration patterns (6.7--8.9\% drift reduction) and amplifies the stability--accuracy relationship. We further propose a Moral Representation Consistency (MRC) metric that correlates strongly ($r=0.715$, $p<0.0001$) with LLM coherence ratings, whose underlying framework attributions are validated by human annotators (mean cosine similarity $= 0.859$).

LLMs Can Infer Political Alignment from Online Conversations

Due to the correlational structure in our traits such as identities, cultures, and political attitudes, seemingly innocuous preferences such as following a band or using a specific slang, can reveal private traits. This possibility, especially when combined with massive, public social data and advanced computational methods, poses a fundamental privacy risk. Given our increasing data exposure online and the rapid advancement of AI are increasing the misuse potential of such risk, it is therefore critical to understand capacity of large language models (LLMs) to exploit it. Here, using online discussions on Debate.org and Reddit, we show that LLMs can reliably infer hidden political alignment, significantly outperforming traditional machine learning models. Prediction accuracy further improves as we aggregate multiple text-level inferences into a user-level prediction, and as we use more politics-adjacent domains. We demonstrate that LLMs leverage the words that can be highly predictive of political alignment while not being explicitly political. Our findings underscore the capacity and risks of LLMs for exploiting socio-cultural correlates.

Vulnerability of LLMs' Belief Systems? LLMs Belief Resistance Check Through Strategic Persuasive Conversation Interventions

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed in various question-answering tasks. However, recent studies showcase that LLMs are susceptible to persuasion and could adopt counterfactual beliefs. We present a systematic evaluation of LLM susceptibility to persuasion under the Source--Message--Channel--Receiver (SMCR) communication framework. Across five mainstream Large Language Models (LLMs) and three domains (factual knowledge, medical QA, and social bias), we analyze how different persuasive strategies influence belief stability over multiple interaction turns. We further examine whether meta-cognition prompting (i.e., eliciting self-reported confidence) affects resistance to persuasion. Results show that smaller models exhibit extreme compliance, with over 80% of belief changes occurring at the first persuasive turn (average end turn of 1.1--1.4). Contrary to expectations, meta-cognition prompting increases vulnerability by accelerating belief erosion rather than enhancing robustness. Finally, we evaluate adversarial fine-tuning as a defense. While GPT-4o-mini achieves near-complete robustness (98.6%) and Mistral~7B improves substantially (35.7% $\rightarrow$ 79.3%), Llama models remain highly susceptible (<14%) even when fine-tuned on their own failure cases. Together, these findings highlight substantial model-dependent limits of current robustness interventions and offer guidance for developing more trustworthy LLMs.

XChoice: Explainable Evaluation of AI-Human Alignment in LLM-based Constrained Choice Decision Making

We present XChoice, an explainable framework for evaluating AI-human alignment in constrained decision making. Moving beyond outcome agreement such as accuracy and F1 score, XChoice fits a mechanism-based decision model to human data and LLM-generated decisions, recovering interpretable parameters that capture the relative importance of decision factors, constraint sensitivity, and implied trade-offs. Alignment is assessed by comparing these parameter vectors across models, options, and subgroups. We demonstrate XChoice on Americans' daily time allocation using the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) as human ground truth, revealing heterogeneous alignment across models and activities and salient misalignment concentrated in Black and married groups. We further validate robustness of XChoice via an invariance analysis and evaluate targeted mitigation with a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) intervention. Overall, XChoice provides mechanism-based metrics that diagnose misalignment and support informed improvements beyond surface outcome matching.

Neural embedding of beliefs reveals the role of relative dissonance in human decision-making

Beliefs serve as the foundation for human cognition and decision-making. They guide individuals in deriving meaning from their lives, shaping their behaviors, and forming social connections. Therefore, a model that encapsulates beliefs and their interrelationships is crucial for quantitatively studying the influence of beliefs on our actions. Despite its importance, research on the interplay between human beliefs has often been limited to a small set of beliefs pertaining to specific issues, with a heavy reliance on surveys or experiments. Here, we propose a method for extracting nuanced relations between thousands of beliefs by leveraging large-scale user participation data from an online debate platform and mapping these beliefs to an embedding space using a fine-tuned large language model (LLM). This belief embedding space effectively encapsulates the interconnectedness of diverse beliefs as well as polarization across various social issues. We discover that the positions within this belief space predict new beliefs of individuals. Furthermore, we find that the relative distance between one's existing beliefs and new beliefs can serve as a quantitative estimate of cognitive dissonance, allowing us to predict new beliefs. Our study highlights how modern LLMs, when combined with collective online records of human beliefs, can offer insights into the fundamental principles that govern human belief formation and decision-making processes.

Rematch: Robust and Efficient Matching of Local Knowledge Graphs to Improve Structural and Semantic Similarity

Knowledge graphs play a pivotal role in various applications, such as question-answering and fact-checking. Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) represents text as knowledge graphs. Evaluating the quality of these graphs involves matching them structurally to each other and semantically to the source text. Existing AMR metrics are inefficient and struggle to capture semantic similarity. We also lack a systematic evaluation benchmark for assessing structural similarity between AMR graphs. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a novel AMR similarity metric, rematch, alongside a new evaluation for structural similarity called RARE. Among state-of-the-art metrics, rematch ranks second in structural similarity; and first in semantic similarity by 1--5 percentage points on the STS-B and SICK-R benchmarks. Rematch is also five times faster than the next most efficient metric.

ChatGPT Rates Natural Language Explanation Quality Like Humans: But on Which Scales?

As AI becomes more integral in our lives, the need for transparency and responsibility grows. While natural language explanations (NLEs) are vital for clarifying the reasoning behind AI decisions, evaluating them through human judgments is complex and resource-intensive due to subjectivity and the need for fine-grained ratings. This study explores the alignment between ChatGPT and human assessments across multiple scales (i.e., binary, ternary, and 7-Likert scale). We sample 300 data instances from three NLE datasets and collect 900 human annotations for both informativeness and clarity scores as the text quality measurement. We further conduct paired comparison experiments under different ranges of subjectivity scores, where the baseline comes from 8,346 human annotations. Our results show that ChatGPT aligns better with humans in more coarse-grained scales. Also, paired comparisons and dynamic prompting (i.e., providing semantically similar examples in the prompt) improve the alignment. This research advances our understanding of large language models' capabilities to assess the text explanation quality in different configurations for responsible AI development.

Benchmarking zero-shot stance detection with FlanT5-XXL: Insights from training data, prompting, and decoding strategies into its near-SoTA performance

We investigate the performance of LLM-based zero-shot stance detection on tweets. Using FlanT5-XXL, an instruction-tuned open-source LLM, with the SemEval 2016 Tasks 6A, 6B, and P-Stance datasets, we study the performance and its variations under different prompts and decoding strategies, as well as the potential biases of the model. We show that the zero-shot approach can match or outperform state-of-the-art benchmarks, including fine-tuned models. We provide various insights into its performance including the sensitivity to instructions and prompts, the decoding strategies, the perplexity of the prompts, and to negations and oppositions present in prompts. Finally, we ensure that the LLM has not been trained on test datasets, and identify a positivity bias which may partially explain the performance differences across decoding strategie